April 1, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Matthew Eannuzzi
April 1, 1996
Page 1
Matthew R. Eannuzzi
55 Country View Lane
Middle Island, NY 11953
Gene Moriarty, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 966
321 W. 44th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Mark Liss
Teamsters Local Union 966
321 W. 44th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Raul Coronado
Teamsters Local Union 966
321 W. 44th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10036
David Pratt
Teamsters Local Union 966
321 W. 44th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
John Sullivan, Assoc. Gen. Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Working Teamsters for Ron Carey Slate
c/o Michael A. Wilson
3050 Park Avenue #8G
New York, NY 10451
Walter A. Newalis
493 Woodbine Street
Uniondale, NY 11553
Matthew Eannuzzi
April 1, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-654-LU966-NYC
Gentlemen:
Matthew Eannuzzi
April 1, 1996
Page 1
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 Matthew R. Eannuzzi, a member of Local Union 966. The protester alleges that the local union used its resources to support the Ron Carey campaign in violation of the Rules. The protester further alleges that the local union refused to provide him with mailing labels organized by shop and required that an agent of the local union be present to observe his use of these labels. Finally, the protester alleges that agents of the local union campaigned while on union time, in violation of the Rules.
The protest was investigated by New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara Deinhardt.
1. Use of Union Resources
The protester contends that Carey slate campaign material has been produced and distributed by the local union. Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules prohibits local unions from contributing anything of value to the campaign for or against any candidate.
The local union admits that several local union agents and employees have worked in support of the Carey slate campaign, but that such work was done on personal time and did not involve the use of any local union resources.
The protester provided no evidence to support this allegation other than his belief that some campaign literature resembles the local union newsletter in format and style. Such an assertion without other evidence is insufficient for a finding of a Rules violation.
2. Mailing Labels and Membership List
The protester contends that he made a request for mailing labels organized by shop but that this request was refused by the local union. He states that he was provided with mailing labels that were not so organized and that the local union insisted that its agent observe his use of these labels. Further, the protester complains that the local union refused to provide him with a membership list.
A. Failure to Organize Labels by Shop
Mark Liss, deputy trustee for Local Union 966, responds that Mr. Eannuzzi did not request that the labels be ordered by shop when he made his initial request to receive them. According to Mr. Liss, this request was not made until after they had been printed. Mr. Liss states that he asked the protester which shops he was interested in so that he could print those labels and not have to reprint the entire set. When asked this, Mr. Eannuzzi stated that he would take the alphabetical set that had already been printed.
Article VIII, Section 7(a)(2) of the Rules states:
Matthew Eannuzzi
April 1, 1996
Page 1
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.
Article VIII, Section 7(b) of the Rules states:
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. The request shall be accompanied by at least one (1) copy of the literature (if the candidate wishes it to be duplicated by the Union) or by a number of copies sufficient for distribution (if the candidate duplicates the literature him/herself), or by a number of sealed envelopes, containing the literature, sufficient for distribution (if the candidate duplicates the literature and stuffs the envelopes him/herself).
Mr. Eannuzzi has provided no evidence that his original request for labels stated that they be organized by shop. In fact, Mr. Eannuzzi has failed to provide any written record of his request that the local union assist him in the distribution of his campaign materials. The Rules clearly require that such a request be made in writing. In the absence of any document requesting the local union to provide a set of mailing labels arranged by shop, the Election Officer credits Mr. Liss’ account.
B. Requirement that an Observer Be Present
The Rules do not prohibit local unions from requiring that an observer be present when local union mailing labels leave control of the local union. The Election Officer understands that local unions have a great interest in preserving the integrity and confidentiality of their membership data. The Rules reflect this concern. As a result, local unions are not required to distribute membership lists to members. In addition, the provisions of the Rules concerning local union distribution of campaign material contemplate a procedure under which a candidate provides the local union with his or her literature and pays the local union to process and post it. In such a circumstance, the need for an observer does not exist because the sensitive membership information does not leave control of the local union or its mailhouse agent.
In the present case, however, the local union agreed to provide the protester with mailing labels so that he could process and post his literature himself. In order for the local union to protect its interests with regard to the use of these labels, it assigned an agent to observe Mr. Eannuzzi’s mailing. Such an assignment does not violate the Rules because it fulfills an important objective of the local union, recognized as valid by the Election Officer, that confidential member information be used solely for campaign purposes.
Matthew Eannuzzi
April 1, 1996
Page 1
C. Denial of Membership List
In his protest, Mr. Eannuzzi states, “Mr. Liss refused to provide me with a membership list as required by the Rules.”
Article VIII, Section 2, however, 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. However, if the Union permits any candidate to copy the list, all candidates must be notified of this and provided the same opportunity. 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. Liss provided no evidence to indicate that the local union permitted other candidates to copy its membership list or that other candidates received a copy of this list. As a result, the protester does not have a right to receive a copy of the membership list when requested.
3. Campaigning on Union Time
A. Greenwood Cemetery
The protester alleges that David Pratt, a business agent for Local Union 966, and Michael Wilson, a member of the local union’s advisory board, campaigned at Greenwood Cemetery, in violation of the Rules.
Mr. Pratt admits that he and Mr. Wilson visited the Greenwood Cemetery site on February 28, 1996. He states that they met with members there during a lunch break and discussed union issues, such as grievances and problems with the medical plan, with individuals and small groups. Mr. Wilson states that at the end of about 45 minutes, Mr. Pratt called everyone present (between 40 and 45 people, by Mr. Wilson’s estimate) together to discuss the date for the next meeting and then reminded them of the upcoming election.
Mr. Pratt then introduced Mr. Wilson as a member of the advisory board and a candidate for delegate. Mr. Pratt did not state on what slate Mr. Wilson was running.
Mr. Wilson then spoke about the election for approximately five minutes and handed out campaign literature supporting his slate. After this, Messrs. Wilson and Pratt left the work site.
Matthew Eannuzzi
April 1, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Pratt’s role in assisting Mr. Wilson in campaigning at the Greenwood Cemetery site is a violation of the Rules. Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules states, in relevant part:
All Union officers and employees, if members, retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to openly support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions. However, such campaigning must not involve the expenditure of Union funds. Accordingly, officers and employees (and other members) of the Union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the Union. Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, violative of this section. Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not violative of this section.
Mr. Pratt admits that he visited Greenwood Cemetery in his capacity as business agent, on union time, and to conduct union business. While there is no evidence that Mr. Pratt campaigned during his visit to the work site, he brought Mr. Wilson to the meeting and introduced him to the assembled members. He identified Mr. Wilson as a candidate, then permitted him to campaign by speaking to the group and passing out leaflets to the attendees.
Mr. Wilson’s campaigning, therefore, took place while union business was being conducted and with the approval and encouragement of Mr. Pratt while he was serving in his official capacity. Mr. Wilson did not ask any other candidate to speak nor did he invite other candidates to attend the meeting. While Messrs. Wilson and Pratt contend that any campaigning lasted less than five minutes, the activity was not incidental to regular union business.
The Election Officer has previously held that campaign statements at the end of a legitimate speech to members are not incidental to regular union business. Hoffa, P-133-
IBT-CHI, aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 28 (KC) (October 29, 1995). In addition, the Election Appeals Master has held that a short, one-sentence statement of support for a candidate delivered in a speech to the membership is campaigning, in violation of the Rules, and is not incidental. In Re: Ranita, 96 - Elec. - App. 130 (KC) (March 20, 1996).
In the present case, an agent of the local union introduced a candidate at the end of a membership meeting so that the candidate could campaign to the captive audience assembled to conduct legitimate union business. Based on the above-cited precedents, this action is a violation of Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules.
Accordingly, the portion of the protest alleging improper campaigning at the Greenwood Cemetery work site is GRANTED.
Matthew Eannuzzi
April 1, 1996
Page 1
B. Other Allegations
The protester also alleges that Messrs. Pratt and Wilson campaigned at Coinmach, a union work site, while on union time, and that Mr. Pratt took candidate Walter Newalis to another work site to campaign.
Mr. Pratt responds that he and Mr. Wilson campaigned at the Coinmach site, passing out leaflets and posting campaign literature, on their own time. Mr. Pratt has provided the Election Officer with evidence confirming that he took a vacation day in order to campaign that day. Mr. Wilson is not an employee of Local Union 966.
The protester presented no evidence to support his allegation concerning Mr. Newalis.
For the foregoing reasons, the portion of the protest concerning Coinmach and
Mr. Newalis 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 appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
Local Union 966 shall send to every member of Local Union 966 employed at Greenwood Cemetery, at its expense and via first-class mail, one mailing of campaign material provided to it by the Real Teamsters for Local 966 slate and one mailing of campaign material provided to it by independent candidates Jacques Apollon and Dominick Martucci. The literature for this mailing shall be no longer than a single page, 8½11 inches and may be printed on both sides. The slate and independent candidates shall provide to Local Union 966 sufficient copies of their literature for this mailing, tri-folded so as to be suitable for mailing without envelopes. The mailing shall be performed at Local Union 966’s expense within two (2) business days of the date the literature is provided.
At the time that literature is submitted to Local Union 966 pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the protester shall simultaneously provide a copy of such literature to the Election Officer. Local Union 966 shall, within three (3) days of the date on which each mailing is made, submit an affidavit to the Election Officer demonstrating the steps it has taken to comply with this decision.
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:
Matthew Eannuzzi
April 1, 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
Barbara Deinhardt, New York City Protest Coordinator
Arthur A. Wasserman, Regional Coordinator