March 4, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Tom Kloes
119 Spring Valley Road
Valencia, PA 16059
Hubert C. Dietrich
4701 Butler Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
Re: Election Office Case No. P-487-LU249-PGH
Gentlemen:
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 Tom Kloes, a member of Local Union 247. Mr. Kloes is a candidate for delegate. He alleges that Hubert C. Dietrich, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 249, improperly used union funds, equipment and staff to file a protest against a slate to which he belongs.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator William B. Kane.
Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) states, “Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigns . . .”
In this case, Mr. Dietrich admits to drafting the protest, having it typed by his secretary, photocopying it and faxing it to the Election Officer on union-owned equipment. He also admits he used a union envelope and union-paid postage to mail the protest.
Mr. Dietrich states that he performed these activities in his capacity as secretary-treasurer and not as a candidate.
The Election Officer has consistently held that the right to file a protest “go[es] to the heart of the safeguards mandated by the Rules and the Consent Order.” Sullivan,
P-084-LU745-SCE (June 10, 1995) (quoting In Re: Puglisi, P-1074-LU64-ENG
Tom Kloes
March 4, 1996
Page 1
(November 25, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 242, aff’d, 88 CIV. 4486, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. 1992)); Crawley, P-098-LU088-PNJ (June 30, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 1 (July 14, 1995); Hoffa, P-264-IBT-SCE (January 11, 1995).
In Scalf, P-097-LU705-CHI (August 16, 1995), the Election Officer extended this principle to a situation identical to the instant protest. Finding that the use by a local union officer of office equipment and secretarial time to file several protests did not violate the Rules, the Election Officer stated that the right to file a protest “is protected, and does not constitute support for a candidate or campaigning under the Rules.” Citing Article XIV, Section 1,[1] the Election Officer found that “[t]here are no restrictions concerning the protected right to file protests” and therefore the action of the charged party did not violate the Rules. See also Jordan, P-269-LU337-SCE (January 18, 1996).
Based upon the foregoing, 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 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
William B. Kane, Regional Coordinator
Tom Kloes
March 4, 1996
Page 1
[1]Section 1 states: “Any member, Local Union or other subordinate body . . . may file a protest with the Election Officer alleging non-compliance with the Rules, free from retaliation or threat of retaliation by any person or entity for such filing.”