July 22, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Jack C. Vlahovic
602 East 4th Street
North Vancouver, BC V7L 1J8
CANADA
Re: Election Office Case No. Post-063-JCV-EOH
Sir:
Jack C. Vlahovic, a member of Local Union 155, filed a post-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3(a) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Election Officer Michael G. Cherkasky.
The protester alleges that the Election Officer adversely affected the supplemental nomination election in the following manner:
1. he failed to take into account the usual period of time required for the Canadian Postal Service to transport mail from Western Canada, and from British Columbia in particular, to the Eastern United States;
2. he failed to consider the potential for delay in mail delivery due to the combination of two national holidays, July 1 in Canada and July 4 in the United States;
3. he failed to assure that ballot packages were delivered to Canadian delegates in a timely fashion; and
4. he failed to suggest to Canadian delegates the use of an alternative method of return delivery, such as Priority Post, in order to insure prompt return of the supplemental nomination ballots by the June 29 deadline.
As a remedy, the protester requests that the Election Officer recount the Canadian portion of the supplemental nomination ballots and include in the final tally all otherwise-eligible ballots postmarked by June 29 and received by the Election Officer on July 6, 1998, the first workday after the holiday weekend.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.
Jack C. Vlahovic
July 22, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Vlahovic was seeking nomination for a Teamsters Canada regional vice - president position. The timetable for the supplemental nomination process allowed 14 days for the supplemental nomination process: the ballot packages were to be mailed out to delegates on June 15 and the ballots were to be returned to the Election Office by June 29. In order to insure prompt posting of the Canadian ballots, all of the 107 ballot packages for Canadian delegates and alternate delegates were sent by UPS overnight to Election Office representative Gwen Randall in Ontario, Canada, on Thursday, June 11. On Monday, June 15, 1998, Ms. Randall placed all of the ballot packages directly into the Canadian mail system.
The ballot return envelopes contained in the packages were all pre-stamped with the amount of first-class Canadian postage required for return delivery to the Election Office. A total of 17 ballots were received by the Election Office by the June 29 deadline mandated by the election schedule. An additional 37 ballots, all post-marked prior to June 29, were received by the Election Office between June 30 and July 6. Of those 37 ballots, the number of ballots postmarked on each day were as follows:
Monday, June 22 5
Tuesday, June 23 9
Wednesday, June 24 2
Thursday, June 25 8[1]
Friday, June 26 11
The 17 ballots received by the deadline were counted and tallied. Mr. Vlahovic did not receive any votes.
Jack C. Vlahovic
July 22, 1998
Page 1
The supplemental nomination process is controlled by Article IV, Section 5 of the Rules, as modified by the Final 1996 IBT International Officer Rerun Election Plan (“Rerun Plan”). The Rerun Plan specifically provides 14 days between the mailing of the ballots to the delegates and the deadline for their return to the Election Office. The District Court approved this same time frame as early as September 1997. The Court approved the specific dates for mailing and counting the ballots on June 3. United States v. IBT, 88 Civ. 4486 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 1997; March 24, 1998; June 3, 1998). A number of post-supplemental nomination election protests challenging the validity of this 14-day time period have been denied. See Theodus, PR-119-STC-EOH (June 12, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 355 (GB) (June 24, 1998); Theodus, PR-140-CST-EOH (June 26, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 357 (KC) (July 6, 1998); Cheatem, Post-054-SUS-EOH (pending). If the protester disagreed with either the 14-day time period or the dates, he had ample opportunity to make his arguments prior to approval of the Rerun Plan by the court. It is improper to challenge the schedule now. In re Jagodsinski, 95 - Elec. App. - 22 (KC) (October 10, 1995). The Court has stated that:
[t]he purpose of the Rerun Election is not to restart the entire election process. The goal is to repeat only those parts of the process necessary to run an honest and fair election . . . and [to do] so without adding pressure to the already precarious issue of funding.
United States v. IBT, 981 F.Supp. 222 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
It was the responsibility of the delegates to insure that their ballots were received by the Election Office by June 29. The Election Officer notes that most delegates are local union officers or politically active members who were aware of the expedited pace of the rerun election schedule.
The first date that the Election Office began to accept remail requests for ballots was June 22. From that date until June 29, the Election Office was only contacted by one Canadian delegate stating that he had failed to receive a ballot. On June 22 a duplicate ballot was sent via UPS Overnight Express to that delegate. A few delegates contacted the Election Office to ask whether the Election Office would accept ballots sent by overnight mail. The Election Officer uniformly replied yes to this question. The protester never contacted the Election Office before the supplemental nomination count.
Finally, the protester concedes that he is aware of how long it regularly takes to send mail from Western Canada to the Eastern United States. To insure his own nomination, the protester could have individually contacted delegates and reminded them to return their ballots as soon as possible.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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
Jack C. Vlahovic
July 22, 1998
Page 1
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
[1] It would be unrealistic for a delegate to assume that ballots dropped off at a post office in Canada as late as Thursday, June 25 would reach Washington, D.C., by the morning of Monday, June 29.