In the Matter of LIUNA
Local 304
Laborers’ International
Union of North America
Independent Hearing
Officer
Docket No.
95-26P
Decided October 26,
1995
Introduction
Richard Sonsten
("Sonsten") protests the disqualification of Rose Anderson ("Anderson") as a
candidate for office during the June 16, 1995 election of Laborers'
International Union of North America ("LIUNA") Local Union 304, (“Local 304”) in
Oakland, California. Sonsten alleges that Anderson was improperly disqualified
as a candidate, and that failure to call for the nomination of additional
candidates after Anderson's disqualification impermissibly deprived Sonsten of a
full slate of candidates.
A telephone hearing was
held by the LIUNA Independent Hearing Officer ("IHO") on September 29, 1995.
Based upon the evidence presented, the protest is DENIED.
Findings of
Fact
1.
On April 27, 1995, Local
304's meeting night, the following persons were nominated and approved to serve
as Judges of Election (“Judges”)
for Local 304's upcoming election: Sam C. Dickenson ("Dickenson"), Chief Judge;
Guadalupe Gomez ("Gomez"), Judge; Carlos M. Garcia ("Garcia"), Judge; and James
Smith ("Smith"), Alternate Judge. See Daily Diary of
Judges.
2.
The nominations for the
election of Local 304 took place on May 11, 1995.
3.
Sonsten was nominated
for Business Manager/Secretary Treasurer.
Anderson was nominated for the Executive Board.
4.
Chief Judge Dickenson
informed the membership of the qualification meeting to be held on May 13, 1995.
See Daily Diary of Judges.
5.
According to the Daily
Diary of Judges, Anderson was "disqualified as a candidate under Uniform Local
Union Constitution of the Laborers Union, under Article V, Section 1, for not
being in good standing in the local union for two years. She transferred into
Local Union 304 on May 12, 1994.”
6.
Anderson did not protest
her disqualification. On June 11, 1995, Sonsten protested Anderson's
disqualification. See Letter from Sonsten to LIUNA General Executive
Board of June 11, 1995.
7.
Sonsten complains that
Anderson's disqualification destroyed Sonsten's "complete slate . . . ." Sonsten further claims that he should
have been allowed to re-nominate another candidate to replace Anderson on his
"slate" when Anderson was disqualified. Id. Finally, Sonsten claims that
the method of selecting the Judges, although in accordance with the LIUNA Local
Union Constitution (“Constitution”), operated in an unspecified manner to his
disadvantage.
8.
Sonsten was given the
opportunity to present additional witnesses and evidence. While Sonsten has
supplemented the record with additional documents, he did not present any
additional witnesses.
The Judges of Election
Were Qualified.
9.
Sonsten argues that the
method of selection for the Judges creates impermissible bias in favor of the
incumbent management.
10. As Sonsten acknowledges,
Article VI, Section 1(c) of the Constitution directs that the ". . . Judges of
Election shall be appointed prior to the Nomination Meeting by the Executive
Board of the Local Union.”
11. Sonsten does not dispute
that the Judges were selected in accordance with the terms of the
Constitution. Sonsten states that
it would be in his best interest to allow the membership to elect their own
Judges.
12. There is no merit to
Sonsten's argument. There is only one method to select election judges
prescribed by the Constitution. Moreover, Sonsten presents no credible evidence
that the Judges were unqualified or that they were improperly nominated or
appointed.
Rose Anderson was
Properly Disqualified as a Candidate for Office.
13. Sonsten recognizes that
in order to qualify as a candidate, Anderson must "have been in good standing in
the International Union for two years and in good standing in the Local Union
for a period of two years immediately prior to nomination….” Constitution,
Article V, Section 1. Although he is unsure as to the exact dates of Anderson's
work history and admission to Local 304, Sonsten argues that he believes
Anderson was "forced" to transfer her book from another LIUNA local union.
14. The Daily Diary of the
Judges of Election reflects that Anderson "transferred into Local #304 on
5-12-94." Sonsten stated that in order to work in Local 304's jurisdiction,
Anderson transferred her book.
15. Anderson's move from
another LIUNA local union to Local 304's jurisdiction to find work was
voluntary. In seeking to accept work from Local 304, Anderson exercised her
right to work in the jurisdiction of a LIUNA local union which was different
than the LIUNA local union to which she belonged. In this case, it does not
matter, if Anderson was required to transfer her book to Local 310, as Local 310
had the right to require, or that she did so on her own volition. See
Article X of the Constitution and Article XXI, Sections 1-10, International
Union Constitution. In either case the transfer was
proper.
16. The Constitution
requires that a nominee for office spend a minimum of two years in the local
union prior to running for office. This is a reasonable requirement under the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMDRA). See, e.g.,
29 C.F.R. § 452.37(a) ("It would ordinarily be reasonable for a local union
candidate to have been a member of the organization for a reasonable period of
time not exceeding two years.”) Anderson was a member of Local 310 for
approximately one year.
Sonsten is Not Entitled
to a Slate.
17. Sonsten's final claim is
that as a candidate for office, he is entitled to a full slate of candidates in
the election and that he is entitled to re-nominate an additional candidate if
one member of his slate, like Anderson, is disqualified as a
candidate.
18. Sonsten further argues
that as a matter of election politics and tactics, it is essential that a slate
or team contain a candidate for every available office, ". . . even if one is a
dead dog…”, "so that [a candidate] will not loose the wraparound
vote."
19. Sonsten concedes that
there is no provision in the LIUNA rules or Constitutions which gives him a
right to a complete slate. Sonsten
argues that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Reich v. Local 89,
Laborers' International Union of North America, 36 F.3d 1470, 94 C.D.O.S.
1470 (9th Cir. 1994) requires that re-nomination take place when a candidate is
disqualified from running for office.
Conclusions
1.
The Judges properly
determined that Anderson was unqualified as a candidate for
office.
2.
There is no evidence
that the Judges were improperly appointed or unqualified.
3.
In accordance with the
terms of the LIUNA International and Local Union Constitutions, the Judges acted
properly in not permitting the re-nomination of additional candidates after
Anderson's disqualification.
4.
The case cited by
Sonsten, Reich v. Local 89, Laborers' International Union of North
America, is not authority which supports Sonsten's arguments. Local 89 dealt with Article VI,
Section 2(f) of the LIUNA Uniform Local Union Constitution. That provision
permitted the Chairman of the membership meeting to call for further nominations
if the Judges of Election disqualified all the candidates for office, or in the
case of the Executive Board members, the disqualification resulted in fewer
candidates than the positions to be filled. The Court ruled that, a
disqualification resulted in fewer candidates than the positions to be filled.
The Court further ruled that, as applied by Local Union 89, Section 2(f)
violated the election provisions of the LMRDA. The decision is contrary to
Sonsten's position.
5.
In response to the Ninth
Circuit holding, on April 13, 1995, the LIUNA General Executive Board voted to
adopt a resolution suspending Article VI, Section 2(f) of the Constitution: "The
adoption of this resolution means that for all Local Union elections in 1995 and
1996 there shall be no further nominations of candidates to replace nominated
candidates who have been disqualified by the Judges of Election." See
Memorandum from Arthur A. Coia, LIUNA General President to All Regional Offices,
District Councils and Local Unions in the United States of April 18, 1995,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
There is no authority
that entitles Sonsten to a slate of candidates when a nominee for office is
found unqualified. There is no evidence that Anderson's disqualification
influenced or could have influenced the outcome of the election for the office
of Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer
Decision
Based upon the evidence presented and the documents filed of record, the nomination protest of David Sonsten is DENIED.
PETER F.
VAIRA
INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER