March 5, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Claude Mouton
2115 Tan Oak
Arlington, TX 76010
Alton Green
407 N. Royal Oak Drive
Duncanville, TX 75116
Re: Election Office Case No. P-497-LU767-SOU
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Claude Mouton, a candidate for alternate delegate from Local Union 767, against Alton Green a candidate for delegate from Local Union 767 on a rival slate. Mr. Mouton complains that Mr. Green was campaigning at the United Parcel Service (“UPS”) Dallas facility on February 8, 1996. He further asserts that Mr. Green received lost time wages from Local Union 767 on that date in order to provide testimony to the Independent Review Board (“IRB”) and therefore was campaigning on union time in violation of the Rules.
Campaigning during time paid for by the union is forbidden by Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Dolores C. Hall.
It is not disputed that Mr. Green was receiving lost-time wages on February 8, 1996. In response to the protest, Mr. Green denied being present at the UPS facility on that day, claiming instead that after testifying at a deposition for the IRB, he spent the afternoon visiting with friends in Dallas and then returned home.
Claude Mouton
March 5, 1996
Page 1
During his interview with the investigator, Mr. Mouton provided no independent evidence to support his claim that Mr. Green was present and campaigning at the UPS facility on February 8. Although he provided the name of another union member, a Glenn Johnson, whom he said had seen Mr. Green campaigning, he refused to provide a telephone number or other way to contact Mr. Johnson. The investigator made an independent attempt to reach
Mr. Johnson, but was unable to do so.
There is a dispute between Mr. Mouton and Mr. Green as to whether he was present at the UPS facility on February 8. The Rules require a protester to provide some evidence to support the complaint. As the Election Appeals Master has stated, when the parties to the dispute disagree as to the facts, “[i]n the absence of tangible evidence” to support the protest, it should be denied. In Re: Chentnik, 95 - Elec. App. - 52 (KC) (January 10, 1996). Here, Mr. Mouton must supply a witness to support his protest or reliable evidence in some other form. The Election Officer finds that he has failed to do so.
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 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
Dolores C. Hall, Regional Coordinator