December 5, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Nancy Sampson
December 5, 1996
Page 1
Nancy Sampson
9329 134th Street
Surrey, BC V3V 5R8
David P. Kozak, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 464
490 E. Broadway
Vancouver, BC V5T 1X3
Chuck Bruce
Teamsters Local Union 464
490 E. Broadway
Vancouver, BC V5T 1X3
Stuart Barrow
Teamsters Local Union 464
490 E. Broadway
Vancouver, BC V5T 1X3
Jim Wood
Teamsters Local Union 464
490 E. Broadway
Vancouver, BC V5T 1X3
Nancy Sampson
December 5, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1316-LU464-PNW
Gentlepersons:
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 Nancy Sampson, a member of Local Union 464. Ms. Sampson alleges that Local Union 464 Business Agents Chuck Bruce, Jim Wood and Stuart Barrow interrogated, berated and threatened her because of her support of Garnet Zimmerman, a candidate for International vice president on the Jim Hoffa-No Dues Increase-25 & Out Slate (“Hoffa slate”). Ms. Sampson also alleges that these business agents were sent to harass her by David P. Kozak, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 464 and a candidate for International vice president on the Ron Carey No Corruption-No Dues Increase Slate (“Carey slate”).
Nancy Sampson
December 5, 1996
Page 1
The charged parties respond that on November 26, 1996, they held a meeting with the protester during work time where they wished to address rumors concerning a grievance and Ms. Sampson’s dissatisfaction with the local union. They deny any attempt to intimidate or harass the protester.
Regional Coordinator Christine M. Mrak investigated the protest.
The investigation revealed that on November 26, 1996, the protester was summoned away from her work to a meeting conducted by the charged parties. The content of the meeting is a matter of dispute. The protester contends that the charged parties questioned and threatened her concerning her campaign activities. The charged parties deny referencing the election and state that they wished to discuss Ms. Sampson’s performance as a steward at The Original Cakerie.
The evidence from interviews with the three business agents and the protester show that the main object of the meeting was to criticize Ms. Sampson for her actions as a steward. Nevertheless, all three business agents were present and the Election Officer finds that a rather heated discussion strayed into the subject of the International officer election and the protester’s support of Mr. Zimmerman, who is running against Mr. Kozak. The presence of three business agents at the meeting and the credible report of the protester as to the tone in which they conducted the meeting indicates that the charged parties created an intimidating atmosphere. Reference to the elections in such an atmosphere while speaking to a member who subscribes to a different political affiliation is a violation of the Rules.
As to the protester’s allegations regarding Mr. Kozak, he was not present at the meeting. During an interview with the investigator, the protester stated she only charged
Mr. Kozak because he is closely tied to Messrs. Bruce, Wood and Barrow; they all ran on the same delegate slate and they all support Ron Carey for general president. Therefore, the protester offered no evidence that would support a claim against Mr. Kozak.
Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED as to the conduct of the business agents and DENIED in all other respects.
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.
Accordingly, the Election Officer orders the charged parties to cease and desist from interfering with the campaign rights of Ms. Sampson or retaliating against her based on her electoral preference.
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).
Nancy Sampson
December 5, 1996
Page 1
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
Christine M. Mrak, Regional Coordinator