February 15, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Darrell Kolthoff
February 15, 1996
Page 1
Darrell Kolthoff
3115 Searles Avenue
Rockford, IL 61101
Executive Board
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 South Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
James Ramirez
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 South Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
Patrick Flynn
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 South Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
Robert Falco
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 South Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
Frank Wsol, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 South Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
Darrell Kolthoff
February 15, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-369-LU710-CHI
Gentlemen:
A 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 Darrell Kolthoff, a member of Local Union 710.
Mr. Kolthoff alleges that members of the Local Union 710 General Executive Board have manipulated the local union’s membership list to affect the Local Union 710 officer election, which occurred in 1994. The protester also alleges that this manipulation is intended to disenfranchise certain voting groups within the local seeking to participate in the Interna-tional union’s delegate and alternate delegate elections. Mr. Kolthoff states that these actions violate Article III, Sections 1 and 2, and Article IV, Section 2 of the Rules.
Darrell Kolthoff
February 15, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Kolthoff, a candidate for convention delegate, states that he learned of the membership fluctuations while attending a January 28, 1996 Local Union 710 general membership meeting where the number of members was reported. As reported at the January meeting, the membership had dropped by 3,000 since November 1995. The protester asserts that Local Union 710 leaders may be paring down the number of “ghost” members added in 1993 to assist in reelecting the local union leadership in 1994; or the leaders are targeting certain members for removal.
In response, Local Union 710 states that membership fluctuations are due to the timing of employer dues remittances.
This protest was investigated by Adjunct Coordinator Dennis M. Sarsany.
Article III, Section 2 of the Rules prohibits any person or entity from interfering with the right of IBT members to vote.
It should be noted initially that the Election Officer’s authority extends only to the International union delegate and officer elections. Her jurisdiction does not extend to local union elections. In this inquiry, therefore, the Election Officer’s review is limited to addressing whether the alleged manipulation of the local union’s membership rolls in 1993 and 1994, and the alleged removal of members impacted the International union delegate and officer elections.
The protester bears the initial burden of proof to offer evidence substantiating an allegation. In Re: Chentnik, 95 - Elec. App. - 52 (KC) (January 10, 1996). To determine the accuracy of the protester’s first allegation, the Election Officer reviewed the monthly per capita figures reported to the IBT by Local Union 710 since July 1993. As stated by the protester, the review of per capita figures reported to the IBT between October 1995 and December 1995 indicates a 29 percent drop in the local union’s membership. Significant fluctuations in the local union’s membership numbers, however, have occurred throughout the period. The data reported through this period does not substantiate allegations of manipula-tion. Instead, viewed in conjunction with an analysis of work-site lists provided by Local Union 710, the Election Officer’s review supports the local union’s response that late dues remittance(s) by one or more of the seven largest companies employing Local Union 710 members would account for the fluctuations. Mr. Kolthoff has presented no evidence to contradict this conclusion.
Similarly, the protester has offered no evidence that the recent drop in Local
Union 710’s per capita is the result of a targeting of any group of voters within the local union. In the absence of more direct evidence, no Rules violation has occurred.
In consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Kolthoff’s protest is DENIED.
Darrell Kolthoff
February 15, 1996
Page 1
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