Protest Decisions

              September 18, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Dane Passo

September 18, 1996

Page 1

Dane Passo

6811 W. Roosevelt Road

Berwyn, IL  60402

Gerald Zero, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 705

1645 W. Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL  60612

John McCormick, President

Teamsters Local Union 705

1645 W. Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL  60612

Dane Passo

September 18, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-890-LU705-CHI

Gentlemen:

Dane Passo, member of Local Union 705, 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”) alleging that Local Union 705 Secretary-Treasurer Gerald Zero and Local Union 705 President John McCormick improperly used local union resources to reproduce campaign materials, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules, and improperly disseminated such materials at a Local Union 705 stewards’ meeting on Wednesday, August 21, 1996, in violation of Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4) of the Rules.

The materials identified by Mr. Passo (the “materials”), consisted of a 122-page report of the Independent Review Board (“IRB”) on its investigation of alleged impropriety in the running of Local Union 714 (the “IRB Report”),[1] 16 pages of charts and a petition to reinstate the suspension of Local Union 710 Secretary-Treasurer Frank Wsol and place Local

Union 710 in trusteeship (the “Wsol petition”).

Dane Passo

September 18, 1996

Page 1

Local Union 705 responds that it did not make 200-250 copies of the IRB Report and charts; that the IRB Report concerned matters of legitimate union business unrelated to the International officer election, i.e., the trusteeship and administration of a Chicago area local union; that such matters are properly addressed at local union stewards’ meetings; and that trusteeships of other Chicago area local unions have been discussed at Local Union 705 stewards’ meetings in the past.  The local union denied involvement in producing the petition, but did not object to its presence at the meeting.

This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos.

Mr. Passo alleges that Messrs. Zero and McCormick reproduced 200-250 copies of the materials and distributed a copy to each of the 200-250 stewards who attended the meeting in question.  Mr. Passo alleges that the reproduction of the materials cost “in the thousands of dollars” and constitutes an improper campaign contribution, under the Rules.

Mr.  Passo is not a Local Union 705 steward and did not attend the meeting.  He did not provide the Regional Coordinator with a copy of the materials that are the subject of this complaint.

Local Union 705 responds that 167 stewards attended the meeting.  Mr. Zero states that he had only seven or eight copies of the IRB Report, which he made available to stewards who requested them at the meeting.  He and Mr. McCormick deny the allegation of general distribution.  Local Union 705 denies that it was the source of the Wsol petition or that it made copies of the Wsol petition.  It states that the Wsol petition was brought to the meeting by a UPS steward.  Local Union 705 was unable to provide the investigator with a copy of the Wsol petition because it did not reproduce the petition.

Local Union 705 stewards Mike Colgan and Ralph Parma attended the meeting.  Messrs. Colgan and Parma state that Mr. Zero referred to the IRB Report and offered to make it available to stewards at the meeting.  They confirm that copies of the IRB Report were not distributed to all stewards who attended the meeting.  Messrs. Colgan and Parma also state that they saw a few copies of the petition at a check-in table, that Mr. Zero directed the stewards’ attention to the petition and suggested the stewards might want to sign it.  There is no evidence that the stewards were pressured to sign the petition.

The Rules prohibit the use of union resources in campaigning.  Here, however, neither of the protested documents is campaign material.

The IRB was created under the terms of the Consent Decree entered in United States of America v. International Bhd. of Teamsters et al., No. 88. Civ.4486 (S.D.N.Y. March 14, 1986).  The Consent Decree states that the purpose of the IRB is to investigate allegations of corruption and organized criminal influence within the union.  The terms of the Consent Decree specifically require the IRB to issue a written report, which details its findings, charges and recommendations upon the completion of each investigation it undertakes.  The Consent Decree specifically requires that the IRB make its written reports available for public inspection during business hours at the IBT office in Washington, D.C. 

Dane Passo

September 18, 1996

Page 1

The IRB Report in question is the written report made to Mr. Carey on August 5, 1995, detailing the results of the IRB’s investigation of alleged impropriety in the running of Local Union 714, including its recommendation for trusteeship of the union.

In view of the clear objective of the Consent Decree that IRB reports be made freely available to IBT members, the Election Officer declines to apply the Rules in a manner that would frustrate that objective and limit the ability of local unions to disseminate IRB reports.   The Election Officer finds that an IRB report duly issued pursuant to the Consent Decree is not campaign material and its presentation at the meeting did not violate the Rules.

The steward who circulated the Wsol petition did not retain a copy.  He credibly stated that the petition read, “We, the undersigned would like Judge Edelstein to overturn the ruling of the IBT Convention that overturned the suspension of Frank Wsol.”  He states that the petition did not mention the election or any candidate for International office.  Mr. Wsol is not a candidate for International office and his recent reinstatement to office by the delegates at the IBT Convention is of interest and importance to the members.  On the facts presented, the Election Officer finds that neither the petition nor its discussion by Mr. Zero constituted campaigning.

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

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

Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator