March 22, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Gary Haskell
March 22, 1996
Page 1
Gary D. Haskell
700 W. Chenango Road
Binghamton, NY 13902
Eugene F. Briggs, President
Teamsters Local Union 693
41 Howard Avenue
Binghamton, NY 13904
Thomas Thayne, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 693
41 Howard Avenue
Binghamton, NY 13904
Gary Haskell
March 22, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-523-LU693-PGH
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 Gary D. Haskell, a member of Local Union 693 and a candidate for delegate on the Reform slate. Mr. Haskell alleges that Local Union 693 President Eugene Briggs and Secretary-Treasurer Thomas Thayne, who are running for delegate and alternate delegate on the Briggs-Thayne slate, unreasonably delayed the mailing of Mr. Haskell’s campaign literature. Pursuant to
Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules, the Election Officer deferred the protest for consideration post-election.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator William B. Kane.
The counting of the ballots for the mail-ballot delegate election at Local Union 693 took place on March 8, 1996. There were 488 ballots cast, of which 461 were counted. Two slates competed for one delegate position and one alternate delegate position. The results of the election for delegate were as follows:
Gary Haskell
March 22, 1996
Page 1
Name Slate Number of Votes
Eugene Briggs Briggs-Thayne 336
Gary Haskell Reform 124
The results of the election for alternate delegate were as follows:
Name Slate Number of Votes
Thomas Thayne Briggs-Thayne 334
Jeff Stanley Reform 125
Local Union 693 has a longstanding policy with respect to mailings for candidates in elections that states that local union envelopes can be used for distribution of campaign literature once during a campaign. The candidate obtains the envelopes from the local union, stuffs and seals them him/herself, and then the local union prints and affixes mailing labels.
Mr. Haskell’s running mate, Jeff Stanley, called Mr. Thayne at his home on the evening of Sunday, February 18, 1996 to request union envelopes for a campaign mailing. Mr. Thayne met Mr. Stanley at the local union on Monday, February 19th (President’s Day) and gave him the envelopes. On February 20, Mr. Thayne received a written request from Mr. Stanley which stated, “This is my request to use the Local # 693 Conference Room to address my letter on ___________.” That same day, Mr. Stanley returned to the local union with the envelopes stuffed and sealed, and requested to use the conference room. Mr. Thayne told him that labels could not be affixed to the envelopes in the local union conference room until the following Friday, February 23, because the local union staff needed to use the conference room for other work. When Mr. Stanley returned on Friday, February 23, the work was done, and the mailing was sent at approximately 10:30 a.m.
In his protest, Mr. Haskell states that Mr. Thayne should have told Mr. Stanley on Monday that he needed to request use of the conference room and that this caused the delay in mailing.
Under Article VIII, Section 7(a)(1) of the Rules,
[e]ach candidate shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of any other candidate, to have his/her literature distributed by the Union, at the candidate’s expense. This means: (a) each candidate is entitled to a reasonable number of mailings, whether or not any other candidate makes such request(s); (b) when the Union authorizes distribution of campaign literature on behalf of any candidate, similar distribution under the same conditions and costs shall be made for any other candidate, if requested . . .
Gary Haskell
March 22, 1996
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 7(e) states, “The Union shall exercise all reasonable efforts to insure that each candidate’s campaign literature is processed and distributed in a complete and prompt manner.”
On these facts, there appears to be some confusion, given the lack of specificity in
Mr. Stanley’s request, as to when the slate wanted the local union to affix the labels. When Mr. Stanley came to the local union on February 20 and requested that the labels be affixed, it then became incumbent upon the local union to do so in a prompt manner, the availability of the conference room notwithstanding. By failing to promptly do so, the local union violated Article VIII, Section 7(e) 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. Local Union, Operating Engineers, 366 F.2d 438 (2nd Cir. 1966). To determine whether an effect exists, the Election Officer determines mathematically whether the effect was sufficient in scope to affect the outcome of the election and/or whether there was a causal connection between the violation and the result or outcome of the election. Dole v. Mailhandlers, Local 317, 132 LRRM 2299 (D.C.M.D. Ala. 1989).
There is a 212-vote difference between the winning candidate and the losing candidate for the delegate position and a 211-vote difference between the winning and the losing candidate for the delegate position. The ballots were mailed on February 16, 1995 and counted on March 8, 1996. The request by the protester to address envelopes was made on February 20, four days after the ballots were mailed. The Reform slate’s mailing occurred on February 23, 1996, seven days after the ballots were mailed. It appears, therefore, that the campaign mailing occurred more than two weeks before the count. The margin of victory in this election was substantial.
. The evidence reflects that the Reform slate was able to mail its campaign literature to the members close to the time it had selected for such a mailing. Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that it is not reasonably probable that the delay in addressing the envelopes affected the outcome of the Local Union 693 delegate election.
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
Gary Haskell
March 22, 1996
Page 1
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