March 14, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
John F. Youngerman
2033 Willow Trail
St. Charles, MO 63303
Joseph A. Galli, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 688
300 S. Grand
St. Louis, MO 63103
Re: Election Office Case No. P-588-LU688-MOI
Gentlemen:
John F. Youngerman, a member of Local Union 688, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against the Galli Team for Convention Delegates (“Galli Team”), a slate of candidates for delegate from Local Union 688. The protester alleges that the Local Union 688 newspaper unlawfully supported the Galli Team and attacked the Teamsters for Ron Carey slate (“Carey slate”) by listing the candidates for delegate and alternate delegate and the shop where each candidate works. Additionally, the protester alleges that the Galli Team, which includes officers of the local union, “us[ed] their control of the union hall to gain special access to the membership list,” which it has used to mail and telephone members on a selective basis.
John F. Youngerman
March 14, 1996
Page 1
Local Union 688 President Richard Schildknecht, who is a member of the Galli Team, denies that the Local Union 688 newspaper had a political purpose for listing the employers of the delegate candidates. Additionally, Mr. Schildknecht states that he asked the Regional Coordinator if he could publish such a list in the union newspaper, and the Regional Coordinator said that he “saw no problem with it.” Mr. Schildknecht further responds that the slate did not misuse the local union membership list for its mailings, and that the local union does not maintain a list of its members’ telephone numbers. He states that members of the Galli Team used personal sources to collect the phone numbers of members who support the Galli Team.
Regional Coordinator Michael D. Gordon investigated the protest.
I. Union-Financed Publication
Local Union 688 has about 11,200 members, including approximately 2,500 United Parcel Service (“UPS”) members. Each member of the Carey slate works for UPS. The members of the Galli Team come from various employers whose employees are represented by Local Union 688.
On February 23, 1996, Local Union 688 printed the January/February edition of its newspaper, which is entitled Teamsters 688 Today. Pages four and five of the newspaper are headed “Notice of Election for IBT Local 688.” Under the headline, the paper printed on one page, the Notice of Election using the form provided by the Election Officer, and on the other, a brief description of the nominations meeting held February 3, 1996 with a listing of the candidates on each slate, stating the shop where each works.
The fact that the Galli Team is composed of candidates from different work places is a recurrent theme in its campaign literature. The Galli Team’s first membership mailing included a letter printed on stationery with its campaign’s letterhead, which lists the Galli Team candidates and the employer for whom each works. The Galli Team sent one letter to UPS employees, and one letter to other employees. Both letters stated that the Galli Team “is a truly representative team made up of everyone in [the] membership: men and women, blacks and whites, young and old, from every part of our Local.”
The mailing included a brochure containing a sample ballot that lists candidates by slate and work place. The same brochure includes pictures of each Galli Team member and states the candidate’s employer, next to his or her name. The brochure prominently states that the slate “represent[s] many shops” and includes “experienced leaders from all parts of [the] union.”
The Galli Team mailed another letter to the membership which was on campaign letterhead, which stated, “The Galli Team is representative of the entire local union made up of everyone in our membership; men and women, blacks and whites, young and old, from many shops.” A letter sent to members contacted through phone banking and who were undecided is also on campaign letterhead. It includes the statements: “The Galli Team represents everyone in our Local: men and women, blacks and whites, young and old.
We are . . . [b]alanced (representing many shops, not just one).” (Emphasis in original).
Article VIII, Section 8(a) prohibits the use of a union-financed publication or communication which “supports or attacks” a candidate. The Election Officer determines whether a union-financed communication is prohibited by measuring its tone, timing, content
John F. Youngerman
March 14, 1996
Page 1
and context. Martin, et al., P-010-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (August 17, 1995), aff’d,
95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995).
The listing of the candidates’ employers in the local union newspaper supported the Galli Team, whose campaign has repeatedly urged that its candidates would be more effective delegates than the Carey slate because the Galli Team comes from different work places while the entire Carey slate works at UPS. The local union newspaper’s listing of the candidates and their employers is almost identical to the sample ballot included by the Galli Team in its campaign mailing to the Local Union 688 membership.
While Mr. Schildknecht, a member of the Galli Team, asked the Regional Coordinator if the local union could include a listing of the delegates’ work places in its newspaper, he did not advise him that the Galli Team had repeatedly emphasized in its campaign the difference in the number of work places represented by the competing slates. It is because of this context that the listing of candidates and their employers supports the Galli Team and attacks the Carey slate.
Accordingly, the protest concerning the Local Union 688 newspaper is GRANTED.
II. Alleged Selective Mailing and Phone Banking By Galli Team
The Galli Team has done three campaign literature mailings. Two mailings went to all of the members of Local Union 688 with the exception of members of the Carey slate and about 20 members that the Galli Team had identified as die-hard opponents. A third mailing was sent to members of UPS with the same exclusions as the other mailings. Additionally, the slate mails out literature to persons reached during its phone banks.
The Galli Team collects phone numbers for its phone banks from personal records and contacts made by slate members, as does the Carey slate. The local union does not maintain a list of members’ telephone numbers.
The Rules do not prohibit either selective mailing or selective telephone solicitation by candidates. In fact, Article VIII, Section 7(b) expressly allows selective mailings. That section provides, in pertinent part:
Any request for distribution of literature shall be made by the candidate to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Union in writing. The request shall specify the portion of the membership that is to receive the mailing and an instruction as to the class or type of mail or postage desired.
Thus, the Galli Team has not violated the Rules by selectively mailing to Local
Union 688 members. The Rules guarantee all candidates an equal right to the membership mailing list. There is no evidence that the Galli Team took advantage of the incumbency of some of its members to gain access to the membership mailing list.
John F. Youngerman
March 14, 1996
Page 1
The Galli Team has accumulated a list of members’ phone numbers from personal sources, the same method as used by the Carey slate. There is no evidence that the local union has a membership phone list or that the Galli Team used union resources to collect members’ phone numbers. The protest insofar as it pertains to mailing or telephoning by the Galli Team is DENIED.
When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appro-priate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
The Election Officer notes that the ballots were mailed to the Local Union 688 members on March 4 and the ballot count is March 25. Therefore, in view of the election schedule and in order to afford a remedy to the Carey slate prior to the ballot count, the Election Officer orders that the Carey slate shall be provided a mailing to the Local Union 688 membership, paid for by Local Union 688, of campaign literature on one side of an
8½11-inch page. See In re: Kilmury, 96 - Elec. App. - 109 (KC) (February 28, 1996) (affirming remedy of mailing for violation of Rules by union-financed publication close to time of election). If the Carey slate desires to mail out literature, it should provide it to the local union within three (3) days of the date of this decision. The literature shall be reproduced and tri-folded. The local union shall mail the literature within two (2) days of its receipt from the Carey slate. Within (2) days after completion of the mailing, the principal officer of Local Union 688 or Mr. Schildknecht shall submit an affidavit to the Election Officer describing his compliance with the foregoing order.
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
John F. Youngerman
March 14, 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
Michael D. Gordon, Regional Coordinator