March 18, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Thomas B. Fahling, Treasurer
United Minnesota Teamsters Coalition
413 19th Avenue, N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Erik Jensen
Ron Carey Rank and File Slate
4343 11th Avenue, S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Re: Election Office Case No. P-541-LU320-NCE
Gentlemen:
This 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 Thomas B. Fahling, a member of Local Union 320, and a candidate for delegate on the United Minnesota Teamsters Coalition (“UMTC”) slate, a slate which is not committed to any particular candidate for International office. Mr. Fahling objects to the possession and use of lists of local member names and telephone numbers by the Ron Carey Rank and File slate (“Carey slate”), a rival slate. Specifically, Mr. Fahling alleges that: (1) possession of such a list gives the Carey slate an unfair advantage over slates not specifically affiliated with candidates;
(2) the lists will be used to unfair advantage, not only in delegate elections, but in upcoming local officer elections; and (3) that statements made by the Carey slate while using the list for telephone calls misrepresent the UMTC slate as supporting the candidacy of James Hoffa for general president, when the UMTC slate includes supporters of both Mr. Carey and
Mr. Hoffa.
Thomas Fahling
March 18, 1996
Page 1
In response, the Carey slate admits to possession of membership lists, which it obtained from Ken Paff at the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”). Further, the Carey slate states that such lists will be returned after the delegate elections and will not be used for the local union officer elections. The Carey slate denies that its telephone callers have claimed that all those on the UMTC slate support Mr. Hoffa but admits that members have been told that some candidates on the UMTC slate are supporters of Mr. Hoffa.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith Kuhn.
The possession by the Carey slate of a membership list obtained from Mr. Paff of TDU was addressed by the Election Officer in Cipriani, et al., P-420-LU391-SEC, et seq.
(March 1, 1996) aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 123 (KC) (March 13, 1996). There, the Election Officer ruled that although Diana Kilmury, a candidate for International vice president, improperly disseminated the membership list to TDU, the delegate candidates who then received the membership list from TDU and Mr. Paff were not in violation of the Rules. The Election Officer reasoned that the delegate candidates could have obtained the membership list directly from an accredited candidate under Article VIII, Section 3. Thus, the Election Officer permitted those local union candidates to retain and use the lists for proper purposes under the Rules. Therefore, the Election Officer concludes that possession of the list by the Carey slate is proper.
The use of the list in local officer elections, as feared by the protester, is forbidden by the Rules. The Carey slate has affirmed that the list will be returned after the delegate elections. There is no evidence of such misuse to support the protest now before the Election Officer. Any misuse of the list will be addressed only at such time as actual misuse is alleged.
Mr. Fahling further claims there was improper conduct in telephoning members to advance the Carey slate. Without mentioning the UMTC or other opposing slates, it is alleged that at least one caller recommended supporting the Carey slate and warned against a return to the old days when the Teamsters were influenced by organized crime. Assuming this occurred and the protester believes it is inaccurate, the Rules “do not impose upon candidates the duty to be truthful in their remarks about opposing candidates.” Kieffer, P-390-LU435-RMT (February 27, 1996); Landwehr, P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995); Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996).
Mr. Fahling’s remaining contention is that the Rules, in permitting affiliated slates to obtain membership lists from candidates, give such slates an unfair advantage over unaffiliated slates such as the UMTC. The Rules clearly permit such conduct. Prior to the commence-ment of the 1995-1996 election process, a period of time was delimited for comment and debate on the proposed Rules. Notice was provided in the IBT magazine, and a copy of the proposed Rules was provided to any IBT member requesting one. During this period, the comments of members and local unions were solicited. As the Election Appeals Master observed when a protester requested the adoption of a narrower definition than that provided in the Rules, “It is improper . . . to attempt to rewrite the Rules at the present time, after the Rules have been debated and formally adopted and promulgated by the Court.” In Re: Jagodzinski, 95 - Elec. App. - 22 (KC) (October 10, 1995).
Thomas Fahling
March 18, 1996
Page 1
For the foregoing reasons, 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
Judith Kuhn, Regional Coordinator