March 6, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
John Cuite, et al.
March 6, 1996
Page 1
John Cuite
14 Sellger Court
Dix Hills, NY 11746
Francis Nolan
228A Spring Meadow Drive
Holbrook, NY 11741
Christian Hagenlocker
18 Salem Place
Copaigue, NY 11726
John Sullivan, Assoc. Gen. Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
John Cuite, et al.
March 6, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-378-IBT-SCE
Gentlepersons:
John Cuite, a former member of Local Union 363, filed a protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). He makes the same allegation as he did in a protest he previously filed, Cuite, P-270-LU363-NYC (January 24, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 87 (KC) (February 12, 1996). In Cuite, he alleged that IBT General President Ron Carey dissolved Local Union 363 and issued withdrawal cards to its membership in order to retaliate against the protester because he sought to become a delegate to the International convention and because he opposes the candidacy of Mr. Carey and Joseph Padellaro, trustee of Local Union 363 and a member of Mr. Carey’s slate.
The protester contends that new evidence supports his previous allegation. Specifically, he submits a memorandum dated January 26, 1996 from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”) Local 3 Business Manager Thomas Van Arsdale to electricians formerly represented by IBT Local Union 363 in which Mr. Van Arsdale addresses the dissolution of the union and the efforts of IBEW Local 3 to negotiate a contract covering the electricians.
John Cuite, et al.
March 6, 1996
Page 1
Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens investigated this protest.
The memorandum is in a “question and answer” format. One of the questions asks for an explanation concerning a group called “AFTER,” which is stated to be composed of former members of Local Union 363 who are “attempting to organize a class action to force the IBT to rescind the withdrawal cards it issued to former Local 363 IBT members.” The protester points to language in the response to that question as evidence of collusion between Mr. Carey and IBT Local Union 3. The cited portion of the memorandum describes “AFTER” as
. . . individuals [who] have . . . aligned themselves with elements of the Teamsters who are seeking to overthrow the reform administration of Teamster President Ron Carey. AFTER is seeking, either knowingly or unknowingly, to bring back the days when the Teamster organization was corrupt so the Employer can once again control certain local unions instead of the members controlling their local union.
The protester alleges that collusion is further evidenced by telephone calls allegedly received by former members of Local Union 363 from “agents” of IBEW Local 3, as well as from Local Union 819, the local union into which Local Union 363 was merged prior to its dissolution. The protester claims that the callers are telling the former members that “Hoffa is connected to the mob.”
In Cuite, supra, the Election Officer made extensive findings of fact as to the events leading to the IBT’s issuance of withdrawal cards to former Local Union 363, none of which were disputed by the protester. She found no evidence demonstrating that the IBT’s decision was pretextual. The Election Appeals Master affirmed her decision, finding that the evidence “convincingly demonstrates that the actions of the IBT were proper, prudent and not election related.”
Upon consideration of the evidence proffered here, the Election Officer does not find that any of her findings or conclusions are undermined. Even assuming that the leadership of IBEW Local 3 is favorably disposed to the administration of Mr. Carey, this does not demonstrate that the protester was issued a withdrawal card by the IBT because of his exercise of political rights protected by the Rules.
Accordingly, 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:
John Cuite, et al.
March 6, 1996
Page 1
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & 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 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator