April 3, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Steven Baudo
2750 S. 72nd Street
West Allis, WI 53219
The CommonSense Slate
c/o Paul Lovinus, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 344
10020 W. Greenfield Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53214
Re: Election Office Case No. P-680-LU344-SCE
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Steve Baudo, a member of Local Union 344 and candidate for delegate on the Ron Carey slate, against the opposing CommonSense slate, headed by Local Union 344 Secretary-Treasurer Paul Lovinus. Mr. Baudo alleges that the CommonSense slate violated the Rules with respect to a campaign mailing:
(1) by using a less expensive mail house than the one designated in local union procedures, and (2) by not sending the mailing to “members [who] do not comprise any separate portion of the membership list, except for their affiliation with the Ron Carey slate, which should not be used as criteria for breaking down the membership list.”
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
On February 19, 1996, Mr. Lovinus sent a letter to all delegate candidates outlining procedures for requesting the local union to do a campaign mailing. The letter designated Publishers Mail Service (“Publishers”) to handle mailings and stated that lists “can be broken down by zip code or alphabetical order, by company or entire membership, by request.” Shortly thereafter, the CommonSense slate sent its first mailing using Publishers.
Steve Baudo
April 3, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Baudo and the Ron Carey slate obtained a Local Union 344 mailing list from the Ron Carey campaign. Therefore, it did not have to use the local union's procedures. The Ron Carey slate made a campaign mailing using A to Z Printing (“A to Z”), not Publishers as designated for requests that the local union do the mailing.
Mr. Lovinus noticed the Ron Carey slate’s use of A to Z and looked into that mail house’s prices and services. He found that A to Z was less expensive than Publishers, as well as an all-union shop, which Publishers is not. Therefore, the CommonSense slate used A to Z for its second mailing. Mr. Lovinus admits that he struck 19 members off the mailing list: “all of the members of [the Ron Carey slate] plus 14 others that I know are saying that I'm an old guard son of a bitch and I'm going to bring back the mob. I wrote a slash across the label.” He states that when he was running for local union office against the then-incumbents, he also deleted names from a campaign mailing by going to Publishers.
Mr. Baudo asserts that the CommonSense slate’s use of A to Z at a lower price than Publishers constituted an incumbent advantage because other candidates would have used Publishers under the local union’s procedures. With respect to the deletion of names, he alleged in his protest that Mr. Lovinus broke down the membership list in an improper way although to Regional Coordinator Kuhn he stated that “[t]hey seem to be manipulating the list in a way that was not available to other candidates by taking out specific people from the mailing.”
The Election Officer does not find that the CommonSense slate’s use of A to Z instead of Publishers constituted an advantage for incumbents or a violation of the Rules. Article VIII, Section 7(a)(1) provides that “[e]ach candidate shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of any other candidate, to have his/her literature distributed by the Union, at the candidate’s expense.” Local Union 344 established a procedure using Publishers in its February 19 letter, which the CommonSense slate used in its first mailing. Nothing prevented any candidate from asking the local union to vary that procedure as long as the local union’s willingness to do so was also available to other candidates. That was what the CommonSense slate did in using A to Z for its second mailing, after it became aware of A to Z’s lower price through receiving a mailing from the protester’s own slate. There is no question that the local union’s secretary-treasurer (who heads the CommonSense slate) varied the local union’s published mailing procedures by using A to Z to do the mailing. There is no evidence, however, that Mr. Lovinus did not afford the same opportunity to vary the local union’s procedures to other candidates or slates. The Election Officer finds that no other candidate or slate has asked the local union to do a mailing through any mailing house at any time.
Mr. Baudo stated to Regional Coordinator Kuhn that “Our slate hasn't been prejudiced really.” The Election Officer finds no reason under the Rules to require the CommonSense slate to use a more expensive mail house after the Ron Carey slate identified a less expensive one.
Steve Baudo
April 3, 1996
Page 1
With respect to Mr. Lovinus’ striking of names from the second mailing, the Election Officer finds that the Rules do not require members or candidates to tender campaign literature to all other members equally. If a member or candidate does not wish to associate with another member or candidate with respect to the delegate election, various sections of the Rules protect that wish. See, e.g., Article IX, Section 1 (slate formation); Article XIII (incorporating
Section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting & Disclosure Act on freedom of expression and assembly). With respect to campaign mailings, Article VIII, Section 7(a)(2) of the Rules recognizes that right and requires local unions to accommodate it if not impracticable: “The Union shall honor requests for distribution of literature to only a portion . . . of the membership, as determined by the candidate, unless the Union can show such distribution is impracticable.”
In this matter, the Election Officer credits Mr. Lovinus’ statement that he struck names from a mailing when he was a non-incumbent simply by going to the mail house. Thus, it is not an option available only to incumbents.
For the reasons stated above, 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
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
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator