Protest Decisions

              March 28, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Rondal Owens

March 28, 1996

Page 1

Rondal C. Owens, President

Teamsters Local Union 299

2741 Trumbull Avenue

Detroit, MI 48216

John Unsworth

25583 Van Horn Road

Flat Rock, MI 48134

Thomas Lundquist

27486 Bordeau

Romulus, MI 48174

Nathaniel Charny

Cohen, Weiss & Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036

Rondal Owens

March 28, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-628-LU299-MGN

Gentlemen:

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Rondal C. Owens, president of Local Union 299 and a candidate for delegate on the Ron Owens/Ron Carey slate.[1]

Mr. Owens alleges that John Unsworth and Thomas Lundquist, candidates for Local Union 299 delegate and supporters of James P. Hoffa for general president, chose to name their slate the Ron Carey Support slate to mislead the voters and to take votes away from the Ron Owens/Ron Carey slate.  Mr. Owens also contends that Mr. Hoffa’s campaign knew of the charged parties’ activities.

In response, Messrs. Unsworth and Lundquist state that they support Mr. Carey and, therefore, their slate’s name is not misleading.  Representatives of Mr. Hoffa’s campaign deny knowledge of any alleged slate-name scheme.

Rondal Owens

March 28, 1996

Page 1

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

Local Union 299 held its nomination meeting on March 10, 1996.  Eight candidates for delegate and seven for alternate delegate were nominated and formed the Ron Owens/Ron Carey slate.  Thirteen candidates for delegate, including Messrs. Unsworth and Lundquist, and eight candidates for alternate delegate were also nominated.  Subsequently, eight of these delegate candidates and seven alternates formed the Hoffa--No Dues Increase slate. 

Messrs. Unsworth and Lundquist formed the Ron Carey Support slate.  Three delegate candidates and one alternate candidate subsequently withdrew their nominations.

The Regional Coordinator’s investigation included interviews with Mr. Owens, the charged parties and several members.  Mr. Unsworth stated that he supports Mr. Carey and has never supported Mr. Hoffa.  Mr. Lundquist told the investigator that he decided to run for convention delegate after attending a Local Union 299 meeting late last year, which Mr. Carey also attended.  Mr. Lundquist questioned Mr. Carey at the meeting and Mr. Carey refused to answer his questions.  Mr. Lundquist stated that he is running for delegate so that he can go to International convention and get his questions answered.  Mr. Lundquist admitted that he has distributed campaign material on behalf of Mr. Hoffa, but claims he has also distributed literature in support of Mr. Carey’s candidacy.  Mr. Lundquist professed that he is leaning towards voting for Mr. Carey in the International election.

Sharon Davie, a candidate for delegate on the Ron Owens/Ron Carey slate related a conversation she had with Mr. Lundquist one day after Thanksgiving.  She stated that

Mr. Lundquist told her that he supported Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy and that he supported

Ron Prieur, now a candidate for alternate delegate on the Hoffa--No Dues Increase slate.  According to Ms. Davie, Mr. Lundquist told her that he thought Mr. Carey was a thief and that he would not support Mr. Carey even if paid to do so.  Ms. Davie claims that she saw Mr. Lundquist wearing a Hoffa campaign badge on two occasions:  at the Local Union 299 nomination meeting and on February 11 at a City Cartage meeting.

Paul Howell, a steward at Nationsway, stated that he knows Mr. Unsworth and

Mr. Lundquist because both of them drive out of the barn located at Nationsway.  Mr. Howell contends that he saw both Mr. Unsworth and Mr. Lundquist at the nomination meeting wearing Hoffa campaign buttons, as well as sitting in vehicles on which Hoffa bumper stickers were pasted.  Mr. Howell said that he has seen the charged parties distributing Hoffa campaign material at the barn and at local union meetings.

Regional Coordinator Wertheimer attended the nomination meeting on behalf of the Election Officer.  Generally, Mr. Wertheimer observed that those members who were nominated and not members of the Ron Owens/Ron Carey slate were supporters of Mr. Hoffa.  Mr. Wertheimer noted that these members were grouped together outside the meeting hall and distributing Hoffa campaign material before the meeting began.

Rondal Owens

March 28, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer generally will permit parties a wide breadth in the selection of slate names, so long as the name is not chosen to materially mislead the voters.  See Holland, et al., P-188-LU480-SCE, et seq. (October 12, 1995).  This principle must be weighed against the Election Officer’s charge in Article I of the Rules to “conduct of fair, honest, open and informed elections.”  While the instant case raises some disturbing issues about the reasons Messrs. Lundquist and Unsworth have named their slate the Ron Carey Support slate, the Election Officer has decided not to grant this protest.  The Election Officer must safeguard the freedom of members to fully exercise their political rights in the election, including their right to support the candidate of their choice and to engage in free speech.  See Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991); Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (March 28, 1996).  It would be contrary to these purposes for the Election Officer to be forced to question who candidates “really” support in an election based upon their selection of a slate name (e.g., Putting Members First slate, Restore the Pride slate, etc.).  It would also put the Election Officer in a postion of “hair-splitting.”  Do all the candidates have to support the candidate in the slate name?  What if one candidate on a full slate supports an opposing candidate?  Opposing slates are afforded ample time between the date for the selection of slate names and the election to educate the voters as to whom the candidates support.  As stated in Landwehr, P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995), “The cardinal principle is that the best remedy for untrue speech is more free speech, with the electorate being the final arbiter.” 

The Election Officer recognizes that the Ron Carey Support slate may have deliberately chosen this name to mislead the voters, but believes this type of deception is distinguishable from her narrow holding in Dunning, et al., P-189-LU 486-MGN, et seq. (October 13, 1995).  In Dunning, the Election Officer found, based upon the unique facts presented, that a slate had deliberately chosen a slate name which had previously been used by the incumbent officers in a local union election and which it knew the local union officers may choose for its slate and use on its campaign materials.  Here, the slates have not chosen the same names.  Moreover, the names chosen identify them with International candidates rather than local union identities.  There is nothing in the Rules which requires a slate to support what its name implies.[2]

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:

Rondal Owens

March 28, 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

William A. Wertheimer, Jr., Regional Coordinator