Protest Decisions

August 29, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Diana Rudolph

August 29, 1996

Page 1

Diana Rudolph

1235 N.E. 152nd Street

Shoreline, WA 98155

Jerry Halberg

7903 S. 124th Street

Seattle, WA 98178

Steve Santone

1323 E. Pine Street #17

Seattle, WA 98122

Scott Sullivan

14112 141st Court, S.E.

Renton, WA 98059

Diana Rudolph

August 29, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-861-TDU-PNW

Gentlepersons:

Diana Rudolph, Local Union 174 member and alternate delegate to the Teamsters 25th International Convention, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules") alleging that Local Union 174 members Jerry Halberg, Scott Sullivan, and Steve Santone ("charged parties") disrupted a Teamsters for a Democratic Union ("TDU") meeting that Ms. Rudolph called to give a Convention report.  Ms. Rudolph is the only member of Local Union 174's Convention delegation (seven delegates and three alternate delegates) who supports the candidacy of

Ron Carey.  The charged parties were other members of the delegation who support James Hoffa.  Ms. Rudolph alleges that they came to the TDU meeting to disrupt it for reasons of harassment and political retaliation, that they refused to leave when asked, and that they did not leave until told to do so by the police.

The charged parties state that the TDU meeting was advertised as a public meeting.  When they were refused admittance, they agreed that the police should be called in order to resolve the issue of whether they had a right to attend.  They state that they left peacefully after the police said that the TDU could exclude them.

This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Christine M. Mrak.

Diana Rudolph

August 29, 1996

Page 1

In Local Union 174's delegate election, Ms. Rudolph ran on a pro-Carey slate: Hasegawa/Carey "Putting Members First."  The charged parties ran on a pro-Hoffa slate: Teamsters 4 Teamsters.  Teamsters 4 Teamsters won the seven delegate positions and two of the three alternate delegate positions.  Ms. Rudolph was the only member of her slate to be elected.

Approximately 10 days after the Convention, on Sunday, July 28, 1996 at 10:00 a.m., the TDU held a meeting at the El Centro de la Raza Community Center in Seattle, Washington, to report on the Convention and kick off the Seattle area Carey campaign.  Ms. Rudolph states that she was the meeting's primary organizer, and she developed the advertising flyer.  The text starts, "The Evergreen Chapter of Teamsters for a Democratic Union Hosts a Public Meeting to Report Back on The 1996 IBT Convention . . . ."  The graphics include a banner reading "WELCOME" and a line of people waiting outside a door.  The flyer also advertises door prizes and gifts. 

Ms. Rudolph further states that Mr. Halberg asked Ms. Rudolph about the meeting at the Seattle/Takoma airport upon their return from the Convention, and she told him that it would be a TDU meeting.

As the meeting was about to begin, the charged parties and three other persons attempted to enter.[1]  None wore Hoffa campaign paraphernalia, although one carried a notebook with a Hoffa decal on it.  Five wore Teamsters 4 Teamsters shirts, which Ms. Rudolph characterizes as "gang colors" that she found intimidating.

The undisputed events that took place at the door are as follows.  International organizer Gordon Teller, a former member of Local Union 174, directed TDU members at the door not to admit Mr. Halberg.  The charged parties and their companions protested that they had a right to enter, because the meeting was advertised as public.  They refused to leave, and an argument ensued about the matter.  Ms. Rudolph called the police, who spoke to each side separately and told the charged parties and their companions that the TDU, as renter of the premises, did not have to admit them.  The charged parties and their companions then left peacefully.  The entire incident took about 30 minutes, of which 10 minutes were spent waiting for the police.

Regional Coordinator Mrak interviewed Ms. Rudolph and three other witnesses from the TDU:  Mr. Teller, Ed Chalfant, and Bob Nyberg.  They state that the charged parties and their companions knew or should have known that they would not be welcome at a TDU meeting and that they were aggressive in arguing their right to enter.  Mr. Nyberg states that someone pushed a shoulder against his chest, which caused him to push back with his arm.  Mr. Chalfant described the charged parties and their companions as "not gentlemanly, too close, too physical," although he saw no one pushed.  He states that he considered statements by people such as "I'm coming in" when others were standing in the doorway to block them to imply a physical confrontation.

Diana Rudolph

August 29, 1996

Page 1

When interviewed, the charged parties stated that they felt they had a right to be at a meeting advertised as public.  Scott Sullivan stated that they wanted to hear a pro-Carey version of the Convention and did not intend to disrupt the meeting.  He also contends that it was his suggestion to call the police to resolve access rights.  The charged parties further state that there was a "general direction" of pushing from inside the room against them at the door, during their initial attempt to enter.  Scott Sullivan contends that Mr. Nyberg pushed Todd Sullivan. 

Mr. Santone states that matters were "goofy" for only a few seconds.  The charged parties contend that they would not have attempted to enter the meeting except for its designation as public, and that none of the charged parties or their companions tried to enter past TDU meetings and did not try to enter the one TDU meeting held since the incident in question.

Ms. Rudolph bases her charge of retaliation on the charged parties' alleged attempt to harass her by disrupting her meeting, which she attributes to their support for Mr. Hoffa and her support for Mr. Carey.  She states that she did not feel physically threatened, although she states that she was hurt emotionally and did not understand why the charged parties would want to ruin the meeting.  As noted above, Ms. Rudolph states she was intimidated by the charged parties' Teamsters 4 Teamsters shirts.

Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules provides: 

Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.

The Election Officer does not find intimidation or retaliation on this record.  Article VIII, Section 11(f) is violated when members engage in physically or verbally aggressive behavior that threatens actual harm.  Passo, P-469-LU705-CHI et seq. (February 29, 1996) (finding intent to provoke physical confrontation to violate Rules), aff'd in relevant part, 96 - Elec. App. - 124 (KC) (March 13, 1996); Lopez, P-456-LU743-CHI (April 10, 1996) (finding “I’ll kill you” to violate Rules in light of ongoing animosity between parties); Smith, P-600-LU150-CSF

(April 30, 1996) (finding remark “you’ll be taken out of here in a body bag” to violate Rules); Kelly, P-600-LU705-CHI, et seq. (March 27, 1991) (finding aggressive threat to “kick their ass” made in menacing manner to be harassment in violation of Rules).

In this matter, some argument was understandable when the charged parties were denied access to a meeting advertised as a "public meeting."  The Election Officer finds that tempers flared briefly on each side and a few pushes were exchanged.  However, the Election Officer also finds that both sides quickly restored calm, agreed to call the police to resolve the question of access, and stood around peaceably while waiting for the police to arrive.

Diana Rudolph

August 29, 1996

Page 1

However, the Election Officer notes that the Rules protect a broader right of association under Article VIII, Section 11(a).  Here, the members gathered for the TDU meeting had a right under the Rules to limit their meeting to individuals who shared their electoral beliefs or objectives.  "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."  Baudo, P-680-LU344-SCE (April 3, 1996), aff'd, 96 - Elec. App. - 165 (KC) (April 12, 1996).  Freedom of association is a fundamental political right included in Article VIII, Section 11(a)'s basic guarantee:  "All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities . . . ."  Thus, with respect to the International officer election, members have the right to the associate with like-minded members and to exclude others if they choose.  See Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (August 16, 1996) (the right to campaign under Article VIII, Section 11(a) necessarily includes the right not to campaign).

When the charged parties in this matter arrived at the TDU meeting and were informed that the meeting notice was in error, and that in fact the meeting was closed, they should have left immediately without the necessity of police intervention.  In Konowe, P-008-LU732-NYC (October 29, 1990), aff'd, 90 - Elec. App. - 8 (November 7, 1990), the Election Officer found that certain local union officials violated the Rules when they refused to leave a TDU meeting after being asked, even though the meeting had been advertised as open to all members of the local union.  Former Election Officer Holland stated:  "IBT members have the right to gather and discuss issues concerning the election . . . free from interference."  The Election Officer finds in the current matter that the charged parties, by refusing to leave the TDU meeting after they were informed that it was in fact closed, violated the associational rights of the holders of the meeting protected by Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules.

For the reasons stated above, the 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 finds that the charged parties violated the protected association rights of other members on one occasion, for approximately 20 to 25 minutes.  There has been a subsequent TDU meeting that was not attended or disrupted by the charged parties or others.  Under these circumstances, the Election Officer finds it sufficient to order that Jerry Halberg, Scott Sullivan, and Steve Santone cease and desist from interfering with the rights of other members by attending or disrupting TDU meetings from which they have been excluded.

An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules.  In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).

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:

Diana Rudolph

August 29, 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

Christine M. Mrak, Regional Coordinator