February 21, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
John Hayes
139 Northern Drive
Rochester, NY 14623
Re: Election Office Case No. P-460-LU118-PGH
Dear Sir:
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 John Hayes, a candidate for delegate from Local Union 118 to the International convention. Mr. Hayes objects to a slate name used by other candidates, because it includes the surnames of candidates for alternate delegate positions that are uncontested.
Local 118 is entitled to send two delegates and two alternate delegates to the convention. A full slate was formed by members Posato, Burrows, Cantwell, and Mazza, who filed a slate declaration naming their slate the “Posato Burrows Cantwell Mazza Team.” Due to the fact that the Local 118 election is contested only as to delegate positions, the names of the slate members running for the alternate delegate positions--Cantwell and Mazza--will not be listed on the ballot.
Mr. Hayes cites two grounds for protest: (1) that the continuing appearance of the names Cantwell and Mazza in the slate name will “confuse our members as well as make this ballot fraudulent,” and (2) that the slate name violates Article IX, Section 2(b) of the Rules, which states that “[t]he number of slate members shall not exceed the number of positions open for election.” Mr. Hayes asserts that the number of positions open in this case is only the two contested delegate positions.
John Hayes
February 21, 1996
Page 1
As to the first ground, there is nothing confusing or fraudulent about a slate name reciting the members of a slate. Even though the alternates are already elected by virtue of that race being uncontested, the Rules in Article IX protect the right of members to associate on slates and have that association recognized by other members in the context of the election.
In general, “the Election Officer will permit parties a wide breadth in the selection of a slate name, so long as the name is not chosen to materially mislead the voters, the name selected does not specify or communicate incumbency, is not obscene, or is not too lengthy to appear on the ballot.” Dietrich, P-350-LU249-PGH (February 21, 1996).
As to the second ground, only two candidates are running on the slate for delegate. Therefore, there is no violation of 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:
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 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
William B. Kane, Regional Coordinator