April 12, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
Ernest Schneider
56 Big Tree Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Randy Olson
1825 San Jose Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Keith Barros
16055 Via Del Sol
San Lorenzo, CA 94580
Gilbert Morales
15325 Tropic Court #36
San Leandro, CA 94579
Hugo Rivas
25013 Whitman
Hayward, CA 94544
Chuck Mack, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 70
70 Hegenberger Road
Oakland, CA 94621
Wally Herkel
Lucky Stores
P.O. Box 5008
San Leandro, CA 94577
Richard Schmidt
Corporate Director of Labor Relations
Coca-Cola Corporation
2750 Eagan Boulevard
Eagan, MN 55121
Pricilla Stewart Jones
Human Relations Manager
Coca-Cola Corporation
7901 Oakport Street
Oakland, CA 94621
Marty Frates
Teamsters Local Union 70
70 Hegenberger Road
Oakland, CA 94621
Martin Wald
Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis
1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-453-LU70-CSF
P-507-LU70-CSF
P-587-LU70-CSF
P-553-LU70-CSF
P-601-LU70-CSF
P-604-LU70-CSF
P-612-LU70-CSF
Post-007-LU70-CSF
Gentlepersons:
This consolidated case involves seven pre-election protests filed pursuant to
Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) and one post-election protest filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3(a) of the Rules. All were filed by members of Local Union 70. The pre-election protests are: P-453-LU70-CSF filed by Randy Olson and Ernest Schneider; P-507-
LU70-CSF, P-587-LU70-CSF, P-601-LU70-CSF and P-604-LU70-CSF filed by Keith Barros; P-553-LU70-CSF filed by Randy Olson; and P-612-LU70 CSF filed by Hugo Rivas. The post-election protest, Post-7-LU70-CSF, was also filed by Keith Barros. Local Union 70 held its delegate election on March 12, 1996. The Election Officer deferred her consideration of the pre-election protests, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules.
Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross investigated the pre-election protests. Protest Chief Benetta Mansfield supervised the investigation of the post-election protest.
There were 1,672 ballots cast at the Local Union 70 ballot count held March 12, 1996, of which 1,394 ballots were counted. Two slates, the Hoffa-Mack slate and the Ron Carey slate, competed for five delegate positions and three alternate delegate positions.
Delegates
Name Slate Number of Votes
Chuck Mack Hoffa-Mack 1,132
“Marty” Frates Hoffa-Mack 1,125
Joseph L. Silva, Jr. Hoffa-Mack 1,105
Larry Dias Hoffa-Mack 1,090
Gabe Ybarrolaza Hoffa-Mack 1,086
Keith Barros Ron Carey 282
Gilbert Morales Ron Carey 271
Kenneth Green Ron Carey 261
Jerome Otis Ron Carey 245
Richard Puell Ron Carey 244
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
Alternate Delegates
Name Slate Number of Votes
Dominic Chiovara Hoffa-Mack 1,100
Ron Rocha Hoffa-Mack 1,090
Robert Bell Hoffa-Mack 1,088
David Godinez Ron Carey 277
Alan Manrique Ron Carey 262
Ellis Phillips Ron Carey 232
1. Posting of Notice: P-453-LU70-CSF
Randy Olson and Ernest Schneider allege that Local Union 70 failed to properly post the notice ordered by the Election Officer in Gilmartin, P-032-LU245 (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 75 (KC) (February 6, 1996). The notice concerned the Real Teamsters Caucus (“RTC”). The protesters allege that the RTC notices on many bulletin boards were missing or covered up.
Local Union 70 President Chuck Mack states that the local union posted the RTC notices as required and did not deliberately remove it or obscure it on any bulletin board.
Mr. Mack further responds that the local union cannot control what happens to notices after they are posted. He states that due to the number of election notices currently required, the bulletin boards are crowded, resulting in partial views of some notices.
The Election Officer ordered certain local unions, including Local Union 70, to post the RTC notice appended to her decision in Gilmartin, supra, within seven days of her decision and leave it posted for at least 30 days. The Regional Coordinator’s investigation disclosed that Local Union 70 substantially complied with the posting order. After the local union received a copy of the protest concerning the RTC notice, Marty Frates, the business agent assigned to Hadley Auto Transport (“Hadley”) where Mr. Schneider works, re-posted the RTC notice there. On February 20, 1996, Mr. Frates held two meetings at Hadley at which he advised the members of the decision concerning the RTC and asked that no one remove any “election material.” The posting period for the RTC notice has now expired.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Election Officer concludes that Local Union 70 has met its posting obligations. Under these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this allegation is unwarranted. The protesters’ complaint concerning posting of the notice, as stated in their protest, has been addressed. Accordingly, this protest is RESOLVED.
2. Availability of Local Union Plan: P-453-LU70-CSF and P-507-LU70-CSF
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Olson also alleges in P-453-LU70-CSF that Local Union 70 “concealed” the existence of their local union election plan and forged the signature on the plan in order to hide that it had withheld the plan. He states that beginning in October 1995, he made several requests to the local union for the local union election plan, but he is not certain that he used the words “local union plan” or “local union election plan.” He states that he ultimately received the plan on December 15, 1995 in response to his request to the local union for his “delegate packet.” Mr. Olson also alleges that the signature of Local Union 70 secretary-treasurer on the copy of the plan provided to Mr. Olson on December 15, 1995 was a forgery, intended to conceal that the plan was available in October 1995, when Mr. Olson first requested it.
In P-507-LU70-CSF, Keith Barros alleges that the local union failed to provide him with a copy of its local union election plan. He states that on or about January 3, 1996, he asked the local union for “everything dealing with the election.” In response, he received a nomination form. He states that he was expecting to be provided with a packet of materials similar to that provided to members during the local union officer elections. Mr. Barros received the plan from the Regional Coordinator on January 5, 1996, in response to his request for the local union plan.
Mr. Olson’s protest was received by the Election Office on February 13, 1996.
Mr. Barros’ protest was received on February 20, 1996. Neither protest was filed within two working days of the alleged refusal to provide the plan. Accordingly, these allegations are untimely, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules and, therefore, are DENIED.
3. Access to Employer Premises: P-553-LU70-CSF
Randy Olson alleges in this protest that Lucky’s Stores (“Lucky’s”) and Coca-Cola Corporation (“Coca-Cola”) violated the Rules by denying him and other persons access to their respective employee parking lots for campaigning. The protester attempted to leaflet at Lucky’s distribution center in Oakland, California on February 18, 1996. He attempted to leaflet at the Coca-Cola facility in Oakland on February 20, 1996.
Article VIII, Section 11(e) of the Rules states that “candidates for delegate or alternate delegate and any member of the candidate’s Local Union may distribute literature and/or otherwise solicit support in connection with such candidacy in any parking lot used by Union members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment . . .” The only limitations on this right are that such campaigning must occur during times when the area is “normally open to employees” and cannot “materially interfere with the course of the employer’s normal business.” Employees may not engage in such campaigning during work time. Additionally, the employer may require reasonable identification to assure that the person seeking access is a candidate or other union member entitled to such access.
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
The limited-access rule has been designed to infringe upon any employer’s property rights only to the extent necessary to implement the goals of the Consent Decree providing for supervision of the delegate and International officer elections. In United States v. IBT, No. 88 Civ. 4486 (S.D.N.Y. August 22, 1995), the court approved the limited-access rule, finding it “crucial to the achievement of a free, fair, and democratic election process.” Id., slip op. at 42.
After discussion with the Regional Coordinator and in an effort to resolve this protest, Lucky’s agreed to allow IBT members a right-of-access to its parking lot at its Oakland distribution center. The Regional Coordinator notified the protester of this agreement by letter dated February 22, 1996, thereby providing the protester with an opportunity to campaign in the delegate election. Thus, with respect to Lucky’s, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this protest is unwarranted. The protesters’ complaint against Lucky’s, as stated in this protest, has been addressed, and the relief requested has been achieved. Accordingly, the protest, insofar as it alleges a violation by Lucky’s, is now RESOLVED.
Coca-Cola, however, has stated that it will not allow access pursuant to the Rules to persons seeking to campaign on its parking lot at its Oakland facility. The Election Officer notes that nevertheless, the protester and members of the Ron Carey slate of delegate candidates were able to leaflet on this parking lot on or about February 25, 1996. Because Coca-Cola’s refusal to provide access violates the Rules, notwithstanding this one episode where access was obtained, the protest against Coca-Cola is GRANTED.
This protest, however, is being considered in a post-election context. Therefore, the Election Officer must consider whether the violation “may have affected the outcome of the election,” under Article XIV, Section 3(b) of the Rules. A violation of the Rules alone is not grounds for setting aside an election unless there is a reasonable probability that the election outcome may have been affected by the violation. Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, Local 6, 391 U.S. 492, 507 (1968). A violation creates a presumption that the outcome was affected. Id. Once a violation is established, therefore, the Election Officer determines whether the effect of the violation was sufficient in scope to affect the outcome of the election. Id.; Dole v. Mailhandlers, Local 317, 711 F. Supp. 577, 581 (D.C.M.D. Ala. 1989). Here, there can be no such effect because the protester obtained the access he sought prior to the election, notwithstanding Coca-Cola’s stated refusal to permit access.
Having found that the Rules have been violated, the Election Officer “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process. While the Local Union 70 delegate election has been held, the International officer election will be held later this year. The Rules grant the same limited right of access to a candidate for International office and any union member within the regional area in which the candidate is seeking office. Thus, it is thus necessary to provide a remedy to insure that Coca-Cola accedes to the rights granted in the Rules pertaining to the International officer elections. In these circumstances, the Election Officer directs Coca-Cola to grant access to the parking lot at its Oakland facility to non-employee IBT members for campaign purposes. An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. In Re: Lopez,
96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1966).
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
4. Instructions for Obtaining a Ballot: P-587-LU70-CSF
Here, Keith Barros protests Local Union Secretary-Treasurer Chuck Mack’s advice to local union members that a member who had not received a ballot should contact Local
Union 70 to obtain a ballot.
Mr. Mack admits that during a “Pre-Work Communication Meeting” at a United Parcel Service (“UPS”) facility on February 27, 1996, he advised Local Union 70 members that ballots for the delegate election had been mailed and that if anyone had not received a ballot, the member should call Local Union 70 or “the number on the notice posted on the union bulletin board concerning the delegate election,” referring to the telephone number of the Regional Coordinator.
Mr. Mack states that when he gave this advice, he was unaware of the Election Officer’s policy that a request for a ballot should be directed to the Regional Coordinator. He asserts that some Local Union 70 members are unwilling to call the Regional Coordinator, but would call the union hall.
In his protest, the protester requested that Local 70 stop giving this instruction. On February 27, 1996, the Regional Coordinator advised Mr. Mack that any member requesting a ballot must do so from the Regional Coordinator and do so in writing. Mr. Mack agreed to advise his members of this procedure. Under these circumstances, the Election Officer concludes that further processing of this protest is unwarranted. The protester’s complaint, as stated in this protest, has been addressed. Accordingly, this protest is RESOLVED.
5. Campaign Hat and T-Shirt Worn on Union Time: P-601-LU70-CSF
Keith Barros alleges that Local Union 70 Business Agent Marty Frates has improperly campaigned on union time by wearing a Hoffa-Mack campaign hat and t-shirt every time he visited the UPS facility in Oakland, California. He alleges that Mr. Frates has worn a Hoffa-Mack hat in grievance meetings with employees where no representative of the employer was present and at meetings with UPS employees.
Mr. Frates asserts that he has the right to wear a Hoffa-Mack campaign hat while at work, unless he meets with an employer representative. He states that he does not wear a Hoffa-Mack t-shirt.
Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules provides that all union members have the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right “to openly support or oppose any candidate [and] to aid or campaign for any candidate.” In her Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems, the Election Officer stated that these provisions protect the right of Union officers, business agents and employees to wear campaign emblems on buttons, t-shirts or hats while at work, but they may not wear such emblems when representing the union before or with an unrelated third party, including during meetings with
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
an employer. See also Blanchet, P-228-LU287-CSF (January 3, 1996); Pope, P-046-
JC7-PNJ, et seq. (October 13, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 35 (November 14, 1995).
The protester has presented no evidence that Mr. Frates wore a campaign hat or other emblem in circumstances which would be prohibited under the Rules. Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
6. Use of Union Resources to Campaign: P-604-LU70-CSF
Keith Barros alleges that Mr. Mack used the local union’s telecopy machine to prepare and transmit a protest. Mr. Mack alleged in that protest that Mr. Barros had defaced the RTC notice that the Election Officer ordered to be posted in Gilmartin, supra. See Part I, supra. Subsequently, Mr. Mack withdrew his protest.
Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules prohibits the use of “Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigns . . .” However, the Election Officer has consistently held that filing a protest “is protected, and does not constitute support for a candidate or campaigning under the Rules.” Scalf, P-097-
LU705-CHI (August 16, 1995). It is the view of the Election Officer that the right to file a protest, set forth in Article XIV, Section 1, is paramount and may not be restricted in any way. Id. See also Hoffa, P-264-IBT-SCE (January 11, 1996); Jordan, P-269-LU337-SCE (January 18, 1996); Kloes, P-487-LU249-PGH (March 4, 1996).[1] Therefore, by using union resources to file a protest, Mr. Mack did not violate the Rules.
The protester also alleges generally that Mr. Mack and the other candidates on his slate campaigned for delegate on union time. However, the protester does not present any specific evidence of this. In Gilmartin, P-032-LU245 (December 12, 1995) (decision on remand), the Election Officer outlined the burden of proof borne by a protester who alleges that a candidate has used union resources for campaigning. She stated there that if the protester presents sufficient evidence that a candidate has campaigned at a particular event, the Election Officer will investigate the source of funding for the expenses related to the appearance.
Here, the protester has not provided any specific occasion of campaigning by
Mr. Mack and his slate. Therefore, he has failed to present evidence of a violation of the Rules.
7. Alleged Incorrect Address Provided to Mail Ballot: P-612-LU70 CSF
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
Hugo Rivas alleges that the local union deliberately changed its record of Mr. Rivas’ address to an incorrect address so that he would not receive a mail ballot. He alleges that this action was taken to deprive him of the opportunity to vote in the local union officers and delegate election. Local Union 70 admits that the protester’s address was changed in the union’s records in September 1995, but denies that the change to an incorrect address was deliberate.
The investigation covered only the allegation that Mr. Rivas’ address was changed to deprive him of the opportunity to vote in the delegate election. The Election Officer has no jurisdiction over local union officer elections. The investigation disclosed that in September or October 1995, the local union changed Mr. Rivas’ address to Hurley Street in Hayward, when he lived on Whitman Street in Hayward. Mr. Rivas has never lived on Hurley Street in Hayward. The local union cannot explain the reason for the change and has now entered
Mr. Rivas’ correct address in its records.
There is no evidence that the local union intentionally changed Mr. Rivas’ address to deprive him of the opportunity to vote. Moreover, it appears that Mr. Rivas’ ballot was not counted because of his own actions. Although he received his replacement ballot at least a week before the ballot count, he admits that he misplaced the ballot and did not mail it until two days before the ballot count, and that for this reason, his ballot was not received in time to be counted.
Based on the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.
8. Challenges to the Ballot Count: Post-7-LU70-CSF
Keith Barros was a candidate for delegate on the Ron Carey slate and an observer at the ballot count held on March 12, 1996. He protests certain actions taken there by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Victoria Chin, who supervised the ballot count. The protester alleges that Ms. Chin: (1) arranged the placement of tables and election workers so as to prevent the observers from properly observing the ballot count; (2) failed to announce, challenge or void “duplicate” ballots; (3) failed to announce, challenge or void remailed ballots; (4) refused to provide the protester with a list of the members who voted in the delegate election or permit observers to tape record the reading of the names of the voters; and (5) tried to pressure observers to declare that the ballot count had been properly conducted.
A. Placement of Tables and Election Workers at the Ballot Count
The Rules set forth procedures for the counting of mail ballots in Article III, Section 1:
(j) The name on each return envelope shall be checked against the list of eligible voters, and all challenged ballots shall be so marked and segregated. Meritless challenges shall not be entertained. The Election Officer or her representative shall have the authority to declare meritless and to disregard any challenge not supported by documentary evidence.
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
(k) All other return envelopes shall then be opened and segregated from all secret ballot envelopes. The secret ballot envelopes shall be mixed thoroughly to maintain the secrecy of ballots. The secret ballot envelopes shall then be opened and the ballots counted by the Election Officer or her representative.
The Rules provide for the rights of observers in Article X, Section 6:
Observers shall be permitted to observe the election count. Observers shall be permitted to be present at the vote counting locations. Observers may challenge the eligibility of any voter to vote. Observers shall not interfere with the Election Officer or her representatives in the performance of her/their duties. The right to observe includes the right to inspect the opening and set up of the counting machine(s) before the count of the ballots commences and to observe the verification of the eligibility of members who have cast ballots, the determination of eligibility of those members whose right to vote is challenged, the opening of the return ballot envelopes; the count of the votes; and the recording of the final vote count and the counting of the unused, voided and spoiled ballots. Observers shall be permitted to remain with the ballots from the time the count commences until the ballots are counted, including overnight if necessary.
Ms. Chin arranged the tables at the Local Union 70 ballot count in a U-shape and instructed election workers to stand in pairs across the table from each other, one inside and one outside of the table. Observers were required to remain outside of the perimeter of the tables. The protester acknowledges that this arrangement maintained a secure area for the ballots.
Prior to counting ballots, the election workers verify that each ballot is from a voter eligible to vote in the delegate election. During the verification of the eligibility of voters, Ms. Chin instructed one of the workers in the pair to retain a roster of voters, and the other worker in the pair to read aloud the names and last four digits of the voter’s social security number from the ballot envelopes. The workers standing inside the tables held the roster. As each name on the ballot was called, the worker with the roster checked off the name.
The protester complains that by giving the roster to the worker on the inside of the tables, the observers, standing outside of the tables, had to read the roster upside down. The protester did not advise the Adjunct Regional Coordinator of his complaint at the ballot count. The Adjunct Regional Coordinator did not conceal the roster and did not intend that the roster be concealed, to any degree, from the protester or any other observer. Indeed, there is no reason why the Adjunct Regional Coordinator could not have had the workers exchange
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
materials so that the worker standing outside of the table held the roster. The Election Officer is, nevertheless, satisfied that the protester had access to sufficient information to monitor the verification of eligibility and was not placed at a disadvantage by being required to stand outside of the perimeter of tables.
During the actual ballot count, workers in pairs sorted ballots while standing on opposite sides of the table. There is no disadvantage if this process is viewed from the outside of the tables. The protester has not established any violation of his rights under the Rules as an observer at the ballot count.
B. “Duplicate” Ballots
Ballots received from persons who had requested a ballot after the ballots were mailed are termed “duplicate” ballots even if only one of the ballots is received. At the count,
Ms. Chin received two “duplicate” ballots, one from each of two persons who requested an additional ballot.
The protester complains that the “duplicate” ballots were not challenged and set aside. However, the Adjunct Regional Coordinator did challenge the two “duplicate” ballots and put them aside with the other challenged ballots. None of the challenged ballots were opened as the number of challenges was less than any margin of victory in the ballot count.
The protester also complains that he could not get the names of the two voters whose ballots were challenged because they were considered “duplicates,” so he could not see them. However, the names of these voters were read at the ballot count. The Adjunct Regional Coordinator showed the protester the “duplicate” ballots. The protester did not complain to Ms. Chin that he did not have an adequate opportunity to look at the ballots. The protester has not established a violation of the Rules with respect to the “duplicate” ballots.
C. Remailed Ballots
“Remailed” ballots are ballots remailed after the original ballot is returned as undeliverable. The protester complained that the “remailed” ballots were not challenged. The Adjunct Regional Coordinator did not challenge remailed ballots, as there was only one ballot from each voter which could be received. There is no violation of the Rules with respect to the manner in which the Adjunct Regional Coordinator handled remailed ballots.
D. Obtaining a Record of Voters
The protester sought to obtain a record of the voters by two methods. First, the protester asked for a list of the voters. Additionally, he asked for an opportunity to read aloud the names of the voters at the ballot count and to tape record the reading. The Rules do not give an observer the right to obtain a list of the voters compiled in writing or to tape record. The protester has not shown that his rights under the Rules as an observer were violated in this respect.
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 1996
Page 1
E. Alleged Intimidation to Certify Election Results
At the conclusion of the ballot count, Ms. Chin asked the observers to sign off on the election tally sheet that the tally was fairly and accurately conducted, the secrecy of the ballots maintained and that the results were as indicated on the tally. Several observers signed the certification, but the protester did not.
The protester had complained that the Adjunct Regional Coordinator conducted the ballot count instead of Matthew D. Ross, the Regional Coordinator. The protester stated that he wanted Mr. Ross to conduct the ballot count because he is more familiar with him, having investigated protests filed by the protester.
Although Ms. Chin conducted the count, Mr. Ross came to the count near its conclusion. When Mr. Ross saw the protester, Mr. Ross asked, “How’s it going?” The protester replied, “So I can sleep tonight, tell me why I couldn’t see Mr. Rivas’ ballot.” An Election Officer representative went and checked the roster of voters, came back and told
Mr. Barros that no ballot was turned in from Mr. Rivas.
The protester states that the election workers were “persistent” in their effort to obtain signatures on the ballot. After some of the observers had signed the election tally sheet,
Mr. Ross approached the protester and asked, “How do you feel about signing this now? Do you have any reason why you don’t want to sign the tally sheet?” The protester signed the certification. Mr. Ross did nothing to pressure or intimidate the protester.
After the certification was signed, Ms. Chin announced that the observers would have an opportunity to sign the tape sealing the ballot box. While an observer for the Hoffa-Mack slate stayed to sign the tape, the protester and the other observers observing on behalf of the Ron Carey slate, did not stay to sign the box. Both slates were provided an equal opportunity to sign the ballot box. The protester has not established a violation of the Rules with respect to his allegations that he was pressured to sign the certification or that his slate was denied an opportunity to sign the tape sealing the ballot box.
Based on the foregoing, Post 7-LU70-CSF is DENIED.
Accordingly, the protest is P-553-LU70-CSF is GRANTED as to Coca-Cola and RESOLVED as to Lucky’s; the protest in P-453-LU70-CSF is RESOLVED as to the RTC notice and DENIED in all other respects; the protest in P-587-LU70-CSF is RESOLVED; and the protests in P-507-LU70-CSF, P-601-LU70-CSF, P-604-LU70-CSF, P-612-LU70-CSF and Post-007-LU70-CSF 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:
Ernest Schneider, et al.
April 12, 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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator
[1]In Scalf and Kloes, supra, the Election Officer specifically found that use by a local union officer of the union’s facsimile machine and other equipment, as well as secretarial time, did not violate the Rules.