April 10, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Robert Kronhert
April 10, 1996
Page 1
Robert Kronhert
41 Hawthorne Street
Rutherford, NJ 07070
John Sullivan, Assoc. Gen. Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Albert Benack
1663 Arlington Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
Robert Kronhert
April 10, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-549-LU843-PNJ
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 Robert Kronhert, a member of Local Union 843. Mr. Kronhert alleges that the IBT violated the Rules when its Associate General Counsel John Sullivan represented Albert Benack, deputy trustee of Local Union 843, in the appeal of an eligibility protest originally filed by Mr. Benack in the Local Union 843 delegate election. Mr. Kronhert asserts that this assistance constituted a contribution of IBT stationery, equipment, facilities, personnel and funds, in violation of Article XII, Section 1 of the Rules. The Election Officer deferred this protest for post-election review, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
Robert Kronhert
April 10, 1996
Page 1
It is not disputed that Mr. Sullivan appeared for Mr. Benack in the appeal of Benack, E-085-LU843-EOH (February 14, 1996). Mr. Benack had challenged the eligibility of Gene Giacumbo, on suspension from Union membership by the Independent Review Board. He also challenged the eligibility of anyone nominated or seconded by Mr. Giacumbo, since nominations and seconds must be made by members in good standing. The Election Officer found Mr. Giacumbo ineligible, but noted that he was not the sole nominator or seconder of any other candidate. Thus, his ineligibility did not invalidate the nominations or seconds of any others. The Election Appeals Master affirmed. In Re: Giacumbo, 96 - Elec. App. - 110 (KC) (March 1, 1996).
With respect to Mr. Kronhert’s allegation that Mr. Sullivan’s participation in the appeal constituted an improper campaign contribution by the IBT, the Election Officer has consistently found that filing and processing protests are protected activities under the Rules, and that the IBT and its subordinate bodies may participate as long as they are pursuing institutionally appropriate purposes. Jordan, P-269-LU337-SCE (January 18, 1996), aff’d,
95 - Elec. App. - 84 (KC) (February 12, 1996); Masters, P-529-JC41-CLE (April 8, 1996); McSweeney, Post-41-LU710-CHI (May 8, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 150 (SA) (May 16, 1991); Furst, P-711-LU1145-NCE (undated), aff’d in pertinent part, 91 - Elec. App. - 172 (SA) (July 29, 1991). “The nature of this participation extends to paying the time of officers or employees for handling such protests, hiring a lawyer or paying a consultant.” Masters;
In Re: McGinnis, 91 - Elec. App. - 150 (SA) (April 17, 1991). See Cook, P-357-LU705-CHI (February 16, 1996) (use of local union’s office, fax machine, equipment, supplies, etc., to file a protest does not violate Rules). Thus, the IBT did not violate the Rules when it provided Mr. Sullivan’s services to Mr. Benack on appeal, if it was pursuing an institutionally appropriate purpose.
In evaluating this factor, the Election Officer has stated that “[i]t is a legitimate function of a local union or other subordinate body to enforce the Rules on behalf of the membership.” Jordan. It is also a legitimate function for the IBT itself. In this matter, the Election Officer finds that the IBT, on behalf of a trustee, was pursuing the enforcement of the provisions of the Rules, setting forth eligibility requirements with respect to Mr. Giacumbo. This plainly furthered the institutionally appropriate purpose of ensuring that persons running for delegate or alternate delegate are actually eligible to hold such positions under the Rules.
Mr. Kronhert contends that Mr. Benack’s eligibility protest was “a clearly partisan act” because it was directed against “all and only” those nominees supporting James Hoffa. The protection under the Rules for protest-related union participation does not extend to taking “a clearly partisan position and engag[ing] in advocacy on behalf of particular candidates.” McGinnis. That, however, is not the case here. The Election Officer has recognized that positions taken in almost all protests filed in a contested election would ultimately benefit one side and injure the other. Jordan. If the IBT or a subordinate body is pursuing a legitimate institutional interest, the Rules are not violated.
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:
Robert Kronhert
April 10, 1996
Page 1
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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator