April 24, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Donnie Von Moore
April 24, 1996
Page 1
Donnie Von Moore
824 E. 52nd Street
Chicago, IL 60615
Take Back Local 743 Slate
c/o Chester Glanton
8049 S. Ingleside
Chicago, IL 60619
Nathaniel K. Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Donnie Von Moore
April 24, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-729-LU743-CHI
Gentlemen:
Donnie Von Moore, a member of Local Union 743, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protester alleges that Chester Glanton, a candidate for delegate on the Take Back Local 743 slate, sent a letter to Local Union 743 members working at the University of Chicago appearing to be official local union correspondence, identifying himself as a “Local 743 Business Representative” and reporting on contract negotiations with the University of Chicago. Mr. Von Moore claims that the letter was actually campaigning for Mr. Glanton’s candidacy and in violation of the Rules.
This protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Dennis M. Sarsany.
The document in question is in memorandum form and was sent to each Local
Union 743 member working at the University of Chicago. It states: “From: Chester Glanton, Local 743 Business Representative.” It is not on union stationery. The letter was drafted by Mr. Glanton and mailed using his own funds.
Donnie Von Moore
April 24, 1996
Page 1
The letter reports ongoing negotiations, extols the accomplishments of the negotiating committee and asks for support in future negotiations. The final paragraph of the letter solicits members’ votes for Mr. Glanton and the Take Back 743 slate in both the delegate and local officer elections.
The Rules do not forbid Mr. Glanton from using his title of business representative in campaign literature. Nor is he barred by the Rules from campaign messages which use his accomplishments in office as reasons to vote for him in this election.
The Election Officer has consistently held that the Rules “neither prohibit nor regulate the content of campaign literature.” Rogers, P-518- LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991). Rather, as the Election Officer recently stated, “[t]he goal to be protected is free speech.” Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996). See Landwehr, P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995); Braxton, P-304-LU623-PHL (May 21, 1991) (“The model for free and fair Union elections is that of partisan political elections . . . The cardinal principle is that the best remedy for untrue speech is more free speech, with the electorate being the final arbiter.”)
Accordingly, and in light of the foregoing, 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
Dennis M. Sarsany, Adjunct Regional Coordinator