Protest Decisions

              March 27, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Penny Adamo

P.O. Box 772

San Marcos, CA 92079

Jack Ward, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 36

4626 Mercury Street

San Diego, CA 92111

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-638-LU36-CLA

Gentlepersons:

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 Penny Adamo, a member of Local Union 36.  The protester alleges that when she requested a work-site list from the local union, in accordance with the Rules, she was provided with a list that was not up-to-date, contained inaccuracies and was missing information.  She further alleges that her request to send campaign literature to selected work sites through the local union was improperly denied, and that she was improperly denied access to the local union’s membership list.

Ms. Adamo specifically alleges that the work-site list provided by the local union included incorrect or out-of-date figures for how many members worked at a particular site, failed to include newer sites, included older sites that no longer exist or employ no union members, provided an inaccurate number of local union employees and failed to provide addresses for owner/operators.  She also alleges that Jack Ward, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 36, rejected her request to target her local union mailing of campaign literature to specific groups of employees.  She contends that, because of this rejection, she was forced to send the material to all members of the local union, including herself, at greater expense.

Penny Adamo

March 27, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Ward responds that the list provided to Ms. Adamo was originally compiled in October 1995 and has been periodically updated.  He contends that the high degree of worker movement in the local union makes it impossible to keep the list completely accurate.  He insists, however, that the list reflects the correct number of local union employees and includes home addresses for owner/operators because most have no business address.  Mr. Ward further states that he rejected Ms. Adamo’s request for a directed mailing because it would take too much time.

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee.

1.  Allegations Concerning the Work-site List

Article VIII, Section 1(b) of the Rules states:

Each delegate candidate, each alternate delegate candidate and each nominated or accredited International Officer candidate shall have the right to a current list of all sites, with corresponding addresses, where any and all Local Union members work. Requests for such worksite lists shall be made to the Local Union’s Secretary-Treasurer or principal executive officer in writing and shall be honored within five (5) days.  Such worksite lists shall be arranged by employer name.

The investigation revealed that the work-site list provided to Ms. Adamo was compiled in October 1995.  There is no evidence that any serious attempt had been made by the local union to keep this list up-to-date. 

Ms. Adamo states that, through her attempts to use this work-site list to campaign, she has discovered that in several instances the list does not accurately reflect the number of union members at specific work sites.  She has also discovered that some work sites are listed at which no union members are employed, and some work sites at which union members are employed are not listed at all.  Moreover, Mr. Ward stated that the list he provided to the protester was periodically updated and contained the home addresses of member owner/operators.  The investigation revealed that Mr. Ward was referring to the general membership list, not the work-site list. 

As a result, Mr. Ward has provided no evidence that Local Union 36’s work-site list has been updated or that any reasonable attempt has been made to insure that the list is as free of inaccuracies as possible.

Penny Adamo

March 27, 1996

Page 1

The Rules requirement that candidates have access to the work-site list was intended to provide candidates who generally have no access to local union files a tool with which they could effectively campaign.  Since the list was available to all candidates, no candidate would receive an unfair advantage by using the list to campaign.  This intent, however, presupposes a reasonably accurate work-site list.  The list provided to the protester contains errors which result from the local union’s failure to reasonably maintain the accuracy of the list.  Accordingly, this portion of Ms. Adamo’s protest is GRANTED.[1]

2.  Allegations Concerning the Request for a Targeted Mailing

The protester contends that she requested to “target mail to [the members at] a few companies.”  Mr. Ward refused this request.  Mr. Ward contends that a targeted mailing would take two weeks to prepare and, as such, would take too much time.  Ms. Adamo states that because the local union refused this request, she was forced to mail her literature to the entire membership at greater cost to insure that those members she wished to reach received her literature.

Article VIII, Section 7(a)(2) states:

The Union shall honor requests for distribution of literature to only a portion or segment of the membership, as determined by the candidate, unless the Union can show such distribution is impracticable.

Mr. Ward contends that the mailing contemplated by the protester would be impracticable because of the time such a project would require.  The investigation revealed, however, a serious gap between the reasonable amount of preparation time such a mailing would require and the amount of time Mr. Ward claimed was required.  Ms. Adamo wished to target mail literature to workers at six different employers.[2]  In order to produce labels for a targeted mailing, the local union would have to generate a list of members at each employer.  The investigation disclosed that a competent TITAN operator can produce such a list in no more than one hour.

The requirements for a targeted mailing revealed by the investigation in no way justify the professed delay of two weeks.

Penny Adamo

March 27, 1996

Page 1

The TITAN record indicates that the six employers to whom Ms. Adamo wished to direct her mailing employ a total of 404 Local Union 36 members.[3]  Because of the local union’s refusal to send the target mailing, the protester was forced to send her literature to

597 members in excess of the members she wished to reach through her mailing.  The investigation revealed that the protester paid $320 in postage for her general membership mailing and paid $10 for the 1,001 envelopes this mailing required.  It is the determination of the Election Officer, based on these figures, that the cost of postage for a 404-piece mailing would be $129.28 and the cost of envelopes for such a mailing would be $4.04.

Accordingly, it is the determination of the Election Officer that the local union violated Ms. Adamo’s rights under Article VIII, Section 7(a)(2) of the Rules, and this portion of her protest is GRANTED.

3.  Denial of Access to Membership List

The protester contends that she arrived at Local Union 36 on March 13, 1996 with the intention of reviewing the local union’s general membership list.  She alleges that she was denied access to the list by the local union’s office manager.

Article VIII, Section 2 of the Rules states:

Each candidate has the right, once within thirty (30) days prior to the casting of ballots in any election in which he/she is a candidate, to inspect a list containing the last known names and addresses of all members of the Union who are to participate in such election.  The right of inspection does not include the right to copy the list but does include the right to compare it with a personal list of members . . . The Union shall not, in any way, discriminate in favor of or against any candidate with respect to access or use of the membership list.             

Mr. Ward states that Elaine Brown denied Ms. Adamo access to the membership list because Ms. Brown believed that she required written confirmation from Mr. Ward before she allowed any candidate to review the list.  According to Mr. Ward, he informed Ms. Brown that Ms. Adamo could see the list.  Mr. Ward, contends, however, that he must be present at any inspection of the membership list and that Ms. Adamo would not be permitted to make any notes while she did so.

Penny Adamo

March 27, 1996

Page 1

Local Union 36 has failed to provide Ms. Adamo access to the membership list as requested.  While the Election Officer understands the desire of the local union to protect the confidentiality of the information contained on the list, the local union may not hinder a candidate’s rights under the Rules to inspect this material.  While Mr. Ward now expresses a willingness to allow Ms. Adamo to inspect the list, as of the writing of this decision, she has yet to do so or be informed that she may.  Accordingly, this portion of Ms. Adamo’s protest is GRANTED.

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 appropriate 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 orders the following:

(1) Local Union 36 is ordered to update its work-site list and provide a copy to Ms. Adamo within two (2) days of the receipt of this decision.

(2) Local Union 36 shall reimburse Ms. Adamo $190.72 for postage and $5.96 for envelopes within five (5) business days of the receipt of this decision.

(3) Local Union 36 shall allow Ms. Adamo to inspect its general membership list at her convenience.  During her inspection of this list, the local union may have an agent present, but

Ms. Adamo is not to be prevented from comparing a personal list of addresses to the membership list or from taking notes concerning discrepancies between these two lists.  She shall not be permitted to copy the list.

(4) Within five (5) days of this decision, Jack Ward, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 36, shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer demonstrating the actions taken to comply with the Election Officer’s 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

Penny Adamo

March 27, 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

Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator