Protest Decisions

              August 21, 1997

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Mike Campanella

August 21, 1997

Page 1

Mike Campanella

August 21, 1997

Page 1

Re: Election Office Case No. Post-50-NCE

Gentlepersons:

Mike Campanella

August 21, 1997

Page 1

A post-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3(a) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Mike Campanella, a member of Local Union 100, alleging that IBT General President Ron Carey

transferred Local Union 100 from Joint Council 26 to Joint Council 1 to retaliate against Joint Council 26 due to its support of James P. Hoffa in the International officer election.

The IBT responds that the transfer of Local Union 100 took place after a request by the local union executive board, that it was a general union policy decision approved by General Executive Board (“GEB”), and the decision had nothing to do with the International officer elections.

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.

On February 26, 1997, the executive board passed a resolution to immediately terminate its affiliation with Joint Council 26 and to affiliate with Joint Council 1.  The resolution cited the following reasons: it was required to pay $.95 per member per month per capita to Joint Council 26 for which it received no organizing support or assistance, no business agent or steward training, and no strike assistance; Joint Council 26 engaged in wasteful expenditures; it would save approximately $13,000 per year in per capita tax;[1] and that Joint Council 1 would provide the membership with programs, support and financial assistance to protect the membership. On May 28, 1997, General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Sever conducted a TITAN electronic poll of the GEB, citing the request by the local union executive board, and stating that the change in affiliation “carries the recommendation of the executive board of Local 100 and Joint Council No. 1, the General President and me.”  On June 3, Mr. Carey announced that the GEB had approved the transfer.

The protester claims that the transfer of Local Union 100 from Joint Council 26 to Joint Council 1 is retaliatory due to Joint Council 26's support of Mr. Hoffa.  As evidence Mr. Campanella, the chief steward at Roadway Express, and Bill Jewett, a member of Local Union 100 and alternate steward cite the vote totals of the local unions in Joint Council 26 as shown in the July 1997 issue of Teamster magazine and the fact that the transfer was made without membership knowledge or vote.  The protester also argues that by granting this transfer, the IBT

“waived” several thousand dollars of arrearage in per capita taxes Local Union 100 owed to Joint Council 26, which grants a benefit to the local union.[2]

Mike Campanella

August 21, 1997

Page 1

To demonstrate retaliation, a protester must show that conduct protected by the Rules was a motivating factor in the adverse decision or conduct in dispute.  The Election Officer will not find retaliation if she concludes that the IBT would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protester’s protected conduct.  See Gilmartin, P-032-LU245-PNJ (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 75 (KC) (February 6, 1996); Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995); Leal, P-051-IBT-CSF (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 30 (KC) (October 30, 1995); Faulkner, P-293-IBT-CLE (March 25, 1996); aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 159 (KC) (April 4, 1996).

In this case, the protester has made no showing that the reasons for the transfer made at the local union’s request were motivated by Joint Council 26's support of Mr. Hoffa.  This conclusion is also supported by the fact that Local Union 100 apparently owed over $26,000 in back per capita taxes to Joint Council 26, which the general secretary-treasurer has not waived. 

The Election Officer has previously stated, even if a member or entity has been an outspoken critic of the Carey administration does not, in itself, indicate a retaliatory motive.  Faulker, supra. 

Also, the Election Officer has held that failure to allow the membership to vote on this issue does not support a protest.  See Robbins, et al., P-013-IBT-SCE, et seq. (June 30, 1995), aff’d, In Re: Murphy, 95 - Elec. App. - 3 (KC) (July 26, 1995) (no violation where IBT ordered merger of small or insolvent local unions).  The IBT Constitution at Article XV, Section 1 permits a change of affiliation without membership vote.   Therefore, the Election Officer does not find that the actions by the IBT were retaliatory.

Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within three (3) days 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

Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator