February 22, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Mark Vandak
February 22, 1996
Page 1
Mark Vandak
411 Hickory Lane
Westerville, OH 43081
Harold Powell, President
Teamsters Local Union 284
555 E. Rich Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Joe Trejo, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 284
555 E. Rich Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Evelyn Powell
4960 Headleys Mill Road
Pataskala, OH 43602
Mark Vandak
February 22, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-362-LU284-CLE
P-363-LU284-CLE
Gentlepersons:
Mark Vandak, a member of Local Union 284, filed two protests pursuant to
Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against the officers of Local Union 284. Because the protests involve the same parties, the Election Officer has consolidated them for decision.
Regional Coordinator Joyce Goldstein investigated the protests.
The Local Union 284 Newsletter
In P-362-LU284-CLE, the protester alleges that Local Union 284 improperly used its resources to publish, just prior to its nomination meeting, a newsletter that criticized certain candidates for delegate who formerly were local union officers.
The Local Union 284 president responds that the officers published the newsletter after taking office to inform the membership about the financial condition of the local union and their efforts to improve that condition.
Mark Vandak
February 22, 1996
Page 1
Local Union 284 President Harold Powell took office on January 1, 1996. During his campaign for local union office, Mr. Powell and his slate of candidates criticized the then-incumbent leadership for failing to communicate with the membership. They state that they published the newsletter shortly after taking office for this reason.
The newsletter, consisting of two pages photocopied on 8½ x 11-inch paper, is named “Teamsters Local 284 News.” It begins with a report on the union treasury. The newsletter also announces the local union’s receipt of a loan from the International union, the intention of the new executive board to negotiate new leases on “smaller, less expensive, and more fuel efficient” union-owned cars, and the board’s decision to reduce the salaries of officers, business agents and staff.
The newsletter also announces that the local union has joined a new joint council and discusses the advantages of this affiliation. In the course of describing the benefits of the new joint council, the newsletter points out ways in which the former joint council was inferior. For example, the former joint council is reported to have spent a large percent of the local union’s per capita tax on “salaries, benefits and administrative expenses, leaving only 20% for programs and services benefitting affiliated local unions and members.” The local union also states in the newsletter that “[t]he leadership of Joint Council 41 has engaged in a long running and bitter fight with the International and consequently local unions have no access to the resources of the International.”
Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication may not be “used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.”
The Election Officer has consistently used the tone, timing and content test in determining when a publication constitutes campaigning. Jacob, P-071-LU319-EOH
(September 7, 1995), aff'd, 95 - Elec. App. - 19 (KC) (October 3, 1995); Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). She also “reviews the specific context in which the communication takes place.” Jacob, supra.
“[U]nion officers retain both the right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern.” Martin, supra. There can be no dispute that the financial state of the local union, the efforts of the new leadership to improve that state, as well as other reforms, are matters which the local union leadership may communicate without violating Article VII, Section 8(a), above. The article plainly addressed issues raised in a previous local union officer campaign over which the Election Officer has no jurisdiction. While the newsletter may be critical of the former officers who may now be delegates, “criticism of a candidate, in and of itself, does not rise to the level of campaigning.” Blake, Case No. P-245-JC42-CLA (December 18, 1995), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 54 (January 12, 1996).
Mark Vandak
February 22, 1996
Page 1
Interference by Local Union President’s Wife
In P-363-LU284-CLE, the protester alleges that the integrity of the delegate election is damaged by the fact that the wife of the president of the local union is employed by the U.S. Postal Service. Additionally, the protester alleges that this fact should have been disclosed prior to the local union officer elections.
The investigation disclosed that Evelyn Powell, wife of Local Union 284 President Harold Powell, is a rural-route postal carrier working out of the U.S. post office in Pataskala, Ohio. She has worked for the Postal Service for 13 years. The local union plan for the Local Union 284 delegate elections designates the Main Post Office in Columbus, Ohio as the post office to which completed ballots will be returned.
Ms. Powell has no direct contact with the Columbus Main Post Office as part of her job. Her job involves receiving and grouping the mail for her delivery route, which is pre-sorted in part at the Main Post Office and in part at the Pataskala Post Office. Each day, she delivers approximately 4,000 pieces of mail to approximately 600 customers, and returns mail left in mailboxes to the Pataskala Post Office. Conceivably, some of this mail could be delivered to local union members. Ms. Powell states that she does not have time to look at return addresses on the mail she delivers.
The aim of the Rules, as stated in its preamble, is to provide for fair, honest, open and informed elections. There may well be thousands of IBT members with spouses or relatives who work for the U.S. Postal Service. It would indeed be impossible for the Election Officer to conduct these elections based upon the possibility such relations may tamper with the ballots. Given the serious consequences that would result to Ms. Powell for tampering with the U.S. mail, her years of service, and the limits of her opportunity to tamper with ballots in the Local Union 284 delegate elections, the Election Officer find that it is pure conjecture by the protester that there could be tampering with the mail.
Accordingly, the protests are 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 & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Mark Vandak
February 22, 1996
Page 1
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
Joyce Goldstein, Regional Coordinator