November 1, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Joseph Martin
155-B E. Cherry Street
Carteret, NJ 07008
Philip Mastroianni
42 Gillespie Road
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1061-LU807-NYC
Gentlemen:
A pre-election 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
Joseph Martin and Philip Mastroianni, members of Local Union 807. The protesters allege that Local Union 807 leased two buses to transport members to a pro-Carey rally after the New York City Labor Day parade, in violation of the Rules. The protesters also allege that the local union accepted the donated use of a bus to drive in the parade.
The local union responds that the protest is untimely. The local union also asserts that there was no Carey rally after the parade and that the buses were used for legitimate union business unconnected to the International officer election.
New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt investigated the protest.
Article XIV, Section 2(b) requires protesters to file “within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested.” The short time limits are important to ensure that alleged violations of the Rules are quickly brought to the attention of the Election Officer in order to afford the greatest opportunity for applying an effective remedy if a violation is found.
Joseph Martin & Philip Mastroianni
November 1, 1996
Page 1
The protest was received by the Election Officer on October 8, 1996. The Labor Day parade at which the protested events occurred took place on September 2, 1996. The protesters state that they filed the protest within two business days of the local union meeting at which they learned that the use of one bus at the parade had been donated and the other two had been paid for by the local union.
The protesters do not deny that they knew of the use of the buses on the day of the parade itself. Rather, they assert that their protest is timely because they did not learn of the manner in which the use of the buses was procured until the general membership meeting on October 6, 1996. The investigation revealed that the protesters were aware of the events giving rise to the protest on the day of the parade. The protesters state that they used “a series of questions” at the meeting to “expose to the average member the underhanded tactic used by” the local union “in allowing their dues money to be used in securing transportation to a political campaign rally.” This evidence indicates that the protesters believed beforehand that local union resources had been used for campaign purposes. Such a belief should have led the protesters to file a protest at the time the alleged violation occurred. As a result, the protest is untimely.
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, D.C. 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
Barbara C. Deinhardt, New York City Protest Coordinator