February 16, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Archie J. Cook
17065 Dixie Highway, Suite 26
Hazelcrest, IL 60429
Jo Pressler, Administrator
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Re: Election Office Case No. P-357-LU705-CHI
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules") by
Archie J. Cook, a member of Local Union 705 and a candidate for delegate on the Hoffa/Hogan slate, against Jo Pressler, administrator of the local union. The protester alleges that
Ms. Pressler violated Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules by utilizing the various resources of the local union to file two protests with the Election Officer.[1]
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos.
Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) states as follows:
Archie J. Cook
February 16, 1996
Page 1
No Union funds or other things of value shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual. Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigns unless the Union is compensated at fair market value for such assistance . . . The use of the Union's official stationery with the Union's name, insignia or other mark identifying the Union is prohibited irrespective of compensation or access.
On January 19, 1996, Ms. Pressler filed a protest with the Election Officer against the Local Union 705 Hoffa/Hogan Delegate Slate and Dane Passo, the slate's campaign coordinator (Case No. P-333). The protest, written on local union stationery, was signed by Ms. Pressler as "Administrator" and transmitted to the Election Officer through the local union's facsimile machine.
Mr. Cook claims that Ms. Pressler's "use of Local 705 resources" to file her protest "is strictly prohibited by the Election Rules." By signing the protest with her official title, Mr. Cook states, Ms. Pressler "creat(ed) the presumption that it was prepared in the offices of Local 705, by personnel paid by Local 705, using office equipment and supplies belonging to Local 705."
Mr. Cook states that Ms. Pressler is campaign manager for the "RPM delegate slate."
Ms. Pressler filed a second protest with the Election Officer on January 22, 1996, challenging the eligibility of three members who were nominated to run for delegate on the Hoffa/Hogan slate. (Case No. E-052). Ms. Pressler typed her protest on the Pre-Election Protest Form distributed by the Election Officer. In Part 1 of the form, which asks for the name, address, phone number and local union number of the protester, Ms. Pressler gave the address and phone number of Local Union 705. She attached the local union's facsimile transmittal cover sheet to the protest and faxed it to the Election Officer using the office facsimile machine at 7:27 p.m.
Mr. Cook objected to this protest as violating Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) in the following ways: (1) using the local union's facsimile machine and fax cover sheet to transmit her protest; (2) putting the local union's address and telephone number on the pre-election protest form as her address and telephone number; (3) "using her official position as an employee of Local 705 to gain access to eligibility records, which access is not enjoyed by other members;" and (4) using the local union's office, equipment and supplies, during working hours, to prepare and transmit the protest.[2]
Article XIV, Section 1 of the Rules guarantees the right of "[a]ny member" to file a protest "alleging non-compliance with the Rules, free from retaliation or threat of retaliation by any person or entity for such filing." The Election Officer has consistently held that this right "go[es] to the heart of the safeguards mandated by the Rules and the Consent Order." Sullivan, P-084-LU745-SCE (June 10, 1995) (quoting In Re: Puglisi, P-1074-LU64-ENG (November 25,
1991), aff'd 91 - Elec. App. - 242, aff'd , 88 CIV. 4486, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. 1992)); Crawley,
P-098-LU988-PNJ (June 30, 1995), aff'd, 95 - Elec. App. - 1 (July 14, 1995).
Archie J. Cook
February 16, 1996
Page 1
In Hoke, P-322-LU89-SCE (January 29, 1996), the charged party, a local union secretary-treasurer and candidate for delegate, had filed a protest with the Election Officer challenging the eligibility of a number of members to run for delegate and to nominate and second other candidates. The protester claimed that the charged party violated Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) and 1(b)(4) of the Rules by having his secretary type the protest and transmit it to the Election Office on the local union's facsimile machine during working hours.
The Election Officer denied the protest, based on her decision in Scalf, P-097-LU705-CHI (August 16, 1995). Quoting from that decision, the Election Officer stated that the right to file a protest "is protected, and does not constitute support for a candidate or campaigning under the Rules." Use of office equipment and secretarial time does not violate the Rules, the Election Officer held, as "[t]here are no restrictions concerning the protected right to file protests" under Article XIV, Section 1. Scalf, supra.
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham and Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Julie Hamos, Regional Coordinator
[1]P-333-LU705-SCE (January 31, 1996) and E-052-LU705-EOH (February 1, 1996).
[2]As Mr. Cook's letters of January 24 and January 25 raised similar factual and legal claims, the Election Officer decided to docket them as one protest.