April 2, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Robert Yolland
245 Hickory Avenue
Tracy, CA 95376
Bob Gamaza, President
Teamsters Local Union 439
1531 E. Fremont Street
Stockton, CA 95201
Re: Election Office Case No. P-657-LU439-CSF
Gentlemen:
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 Robert Yolland, a member of Local Union 439. The protester alleges that Bob Gamaza, president of Local Union 439, used union resources to issue a letter intended to influence the outcome of the local union’s delegate election, in violation of the Rules.
Mr. Gamaza responds that the protested letter was issued for legitimate reasons as part of local union business. He denies that it was intended to influence the campaign of any slate or individual.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross.
The investigation revealed that on March 15, 1996 Mr. Gamaza sent a letter to members of Local Union 439 employed by Yellow Freight. In the letter, Mr. Gamaza explains his motivations for filing a grievance over Yellow Freight’s application of a “40 and out” provision, whereby the employer can mandatorily retire individuals with 40 years’ service with the company.
Robert Yolland
April 2, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Yolland claims that the timing of this letter was intended to impact upon the campaign. The protester also alleges that specific sections of this letter are intended as attacks on delegate candidate Joaquin Morales, or to bolster Mr. Gamaza’s own candidacy. Specifically, the protester cites three passages from the letter as improper campaigning, under the Rules. In the first, Mr. Gamaza states:
It’s my understanding that someone on the dock at YFS would have you think individual pressure brought about the filing [of the grievance] from the Union, and IBT Freight Director Dennis Skelton “forced’ me to file the grievance seeking the “Combination Terminal” application. Let me set the record straight.
The protester alleges that local union members would recognize this reference to “someone on the dock” as Mr. Morales, who works on the dock at Yellow Freight.
In the second passage, Mr. Gamaza states:
At no time did Mr. Skelton attempt to “force” me to file the grievance. Mr. Skelton does not have the authority to order Local 439 to file grievances. However, I did take his advice and submit a grievance on behalf of all Teamsters at YFS Tracy in order to seek out the appropriate 40 & Out application.
The protester contends that this statement is especially political.
In the third passage, Mr. Gamaza states:
An individual may choose to take “credit” for the pursuit of this matter and play political handball with this crucial issue. I will not participate in those games! All the “chest pounding” and “politicking” in the world won’t get the application we feel is appropriate. Only Mr. Skelton and our National Freight Representative can do that.
The protester contends that Yellow Freight workers will recognize this passage as an attack on Mr. Morales.
Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication may not be “used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.” In reviewing union-financed communications for improper campaign content, the Election Officer looks to the tone, content and timing of the publication. Martin, P-010-
IBT-PNJ, et al. (August 17, 1995) (decision on remand), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995).
Robert Yolland
April 2, 1996
Page 1
In Martin, the Election Officer recognized that union officers and officials have a “right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office and to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern” (quoting Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). The Election Officer also recognized in Martin that:
. . . an otherwise acceptable communication may be considered campaigning if it goes on to make a connection with the election or election process, if it involves excessive direct or indirect personal attacks on candidates, or, alternatively, involves lavish praise of candidates. Otherwise, legitimate coverage of the activities of a union official running for office may constitute campaigning if it is excessive.
The letter protested here is an attempt by the president of the local union to communicate issues of general concern--in this case, the procedure behind the decision to file a grievance concerning the application of the “40 and out” provision--to a relevant segment of the local union’s membership. The issuing of such a communication falls within the duties of a local union president, and Mr. Gamaza does not make a connection to the election in the letter nor make excessive attacks upon a candidate. A rebuttal of allegations made by unnamed individuals does not, in this case, amount to an excessive attack or a violation of the Rules.
Mr. Yolland asserts that the timing of the letter indicates it was intended to affect the election. The investigation revealed, however, that Mr. Gamaza’s letter was issued shortly after he received reports of rumors concerning how the grievance was filed. There is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Gamaza attempted to manipulate the election process by delaying the issuance of his letter after he received these reports. The timing of the letter is linked closely to these reports, not to the election process.
For the foregoing reasons, 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:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Robert Yolland
April 2, 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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator