May 1, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Ralph Harrison
68 Overbank Drive
Oshawa, Ontario L1J 7Y8
John Burt, President
Teamsters Local Union 230
55 Nugget Avenue, Suite 214
Scarborough, Ontario M1S 3L1
Re: Election Office Case No. Post-017-LU230-CAN
Gentlemen:
Ralph Harrison, a member of Local Union 230 and candidate for delegate on the Maze/Harrison/Cullingham slate, filed a post-election protest, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3 of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). Mr. Harrison requests that the Election Officer reconsider an earlier remedy ordered on his behalf in Harrison, P-596-LU230-CAN (March 21, 1996), and affirmed on appeal by the Election Appeals Master. In Re: Harrison, 96 - Elec. App. - 156 (KC) (April 3, 1996). Mr. Harrison made no attempt to avail himself of the remedy ordered by the Election Officer in that case. He now asks that the remedy be declared inadequate and the Local
Union 230 delegate election be declared void.
This protest was assigned to Regional Coordinator Gwen K. Randall for investigation.
Ralph Harrison
May 1, 1996
Page 1
In Harrison, the Election Officer addressed a violation of the Rules that occurred when Local Union 230 failed to furnish Mr. Harrison with a work-site list in the time period required. The Election Officer found this violation serious because Mr. Harrison did not finally receive the list until about the time that ballots were mailed to members. In fashioning a remedy, the Election Officer noted that this delay deprived Mr. Harrison of the opportunity to apportion his personal campaigning at work sites for the best effect. Therefore, the Election Officer created the opportunity for Mr. Harrison to reach every Local Union 230 member by mail. As the decision explained:
There are 93 work sites on Local Union 230’s list, covering 1,767 employees. The number of employees at individual work sites ranges from 1 to 125; the average is 19. The two-week delay in providing the work-site list came at a critical time in the election process as the protester did not receive the list until just before the ballots were mailed on March 13. This potentially restricted the protester’s effort to assess, prioritize, and reach a potentially large number of work sites before members received their ballots [and] shows the seriousness of the local union’s violation in this matter.
Because Local Union 230’s violation deprived Mr. Harrison and his supporters of time to reach a significant number of work sites in person, the Election Officer has fashioned a remedy to allow Mr. Harrison to reach members by mail.
The Election Officer orders Local Union 230 to send to every member of the local union, at its expense, one mailing of campaign material provided to it by Mr. Harrison, if he so chooses. The literature shall be no longer than a single page,
8½ 11 inches, may be printed on both sides but shall be suitable for mailing as a tri-fold. The literature shall be provided to Local Union 230 by Mr. Harrison and shall be duplicated and mailed by first-class mail by Local Union 230 within two (2) business days of the date the literature is provided to it. Local Union 230 shall bear the cost of duplication and mailing. [Footnote omitted.]
The decision in Harrison was issued on Thursday, March 21, 1996 and Mr. Harrison acknowledges receiving it on Friday, March 22. An order of the Election Officer takes effect immediately unless a stay is granted, In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996), and there was no stay requested in this case. Therefore, Local Union 230 was required to mail campaign literature for Mr. Harrison to every local union member, at no cost to him, within two business days of its submission. Mr. Harrison did not supply any campaign literature to the local union. If Mr. Harrison had furnished literature on Monday, March 25, the local union would have been required to mail it by March 27. That would have been
16 days before ballots were counted on April 12.[1]
Ralph Harrison
May 1, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Harrison admits that he did not avail himself of this remedy. Both he and the local union appealed the decision to the Election Appeals Master. On appeal, Mr. Harrison contended that the remedy as ordered was insufficient and asked for a modification extending the ballot-count date from April 12 to April 30, in order to allow time for members to change their votes if they so chose.[2] By decision dated April 3, 1996, the Election Appeals Master affirmed the Election Officer’s decision, stating, “I am satisfied that the violation found by the Election Officer and the remedy ordered is in all respects sound and appropriate.”
In this protest, Mr. Harrison argues again that the original remedy order was insufficient. In supporting papers, he attempts to show how the remedy left insufficient time for members to receive his mailing and then change their votes. Mr. Harrison made this argument to the Election Appeals Master and it was rejected. The Election Officer does not find that any new information has been provided which would warrant reconsideration post-election.
There is no allegation that the local union failed to effectuate the remedy. The Election Officer actively monitors compliance with her remedies and assesses their effectiveness. That process cannot happen, however, if a protester declines to use the opportunity that an ordered remedy affords. The Election Officer determined that a mailing was an appropriate remedy for the violation found in Mr. Harrison’s earlier protest and the Election Appeals Master affirmed.
For the reasons stated above, 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
Ralph Harrison
May 1, 1996
Page 1
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
Gwen K. Randall, Regional Coordinator
[1]Mr. Harrison states that he could not have submitted literature to the local union until March 26, in which case the local union would have been required to mail it by March 28--
15 days before ballot count.
[2]The Election Officer notes that Mr. Harrison could have used the remedy and tested its adequacy by appeal at the same time.