In the Matter of LIUNA Local 1036
Laborers’ International Union of North America
Independent Hearing Officer
Decided November, 20 1995
Order and Memorandum
A.A. Plennevaux (APlennevaux@) protests various aspects of the 1995 nomination of candidates and election of officers of Laborers' International Union of North America (ALIUNA@) Local Union 1036 (“Local 1036”), in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada. Plennevaux alleges that: (1) there was an improper refusal to nominate auditors; (2) candidates for office were improperly disqualified during the nomination process because there was no public announcement of the reasons for their disqualifications and because one Judge of Election was unqualified; and (3) unqualified voter(s) participated in the election.
A telephone hearing (AHearing@) was held by the LIUNA Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on October 24, 1995. Based upon the evidence presented, the protest is DENIED.
1. As I understand Plennevaux's protest, the nomination process was flawed on two grounds: the reasons for the disqualification of nominees were not announced publicly to the membership and Jimmie Lewis (ALewis@) was unqualified to sit as Judge of Election. Plennevaux alleges that Lewis was unqualified because Lewis worked at other businesses during the year and was not working at the calling.
2. On April 26, 1995, a nomination meeting was held at the offices of Local 1036. See Minutes of April 26, 1995, Nomination Meeting (''April 26, 1995, Minutes'') at 1. The minutes reflect that three Judges of Election (AJudges@) had been selected by the Local Union 1036 Executive Board: Lewis, Ed Danz, and Louie Mancini. Id. at 4. No protest of the selection or qualifications of any of the Judges was made. Id.
3. The Judges reviewed the qualifications for office for the membership. Id. Subsequently, the floor was opened for nominations of candidates for various offices which were received and recorded. Id. at 3-4.
4. The Judges announced the time and place where the nominees for office would be interviewed to examine their qualifications as candidates for the upcoming election. Id. at 4.
5. On May 2, 1995, the Judges examined the qualifications of the nominees. Thereafter, a number of nominees were found not qualified: Ted Jackson (“Jackson”), Lloyd Betts (ABetts@), Gary Merling (AMerling@), and Eugene Caputo (ACaputo@). The disqualified candidates were informed personally of the reason for their disqualification and their right to appeal, if they so desired.
6. On May 9, 1995, during the Local Union 1036 regular monthly membership meeting, the Judges reported the results of their examination of the nominees' qualifications to the members present. See Minutes of May 9, 1995, Membership Meeting (''May 9, 1995, Minutes'') at 2-3. No one questioned the disqualification of any of the nominees. Id.
7. The election for officers was held on May 31, 1995.
8. Although no individual nominee protested his qualification, Plennevaux protested the disqualifications of Caputo, Betts, Jackson and Merling. See Letter from Plennevaux to LIUNA General Executive Board of May 22, 1995. (“Protest Letter’).
9. In support of his protest that Lewis was unqualified, Plennevaux argues that Article VII, Section 6, of the LIUNA Uniform Local Union Constitution (“Constitution”) operates to preclude Lewis from serving as a judge.
10. Article VII, Section 6, provides:
Any member who is not working at the calling or who is engaged in private enterprise shall not have a voice or a vote at meetings of the Local Union.
Article VII relates only to the conduct of meetings. It is entitled ''Meetings'', and every section deals in some manner with meeting procedure.
11. Plennevaux claims, however, that Article VII, Section 6, operates with Article VI, Section 1(c) of the Constitution to preclude Lewis from serving as a Judge. Article VI, Section 1(c) states:
Three Judges of Election shall be appointed prior to the Nomination Meeting by the Executive Board of the Local Union. They shall not be candidates for office but they shall possess all the qualifications required of candidates for office except that they may be retired;
Uniform Local Union Constitution.
12. Article V of the Constitution requires a member to be working at the calling to qualify as candidate and provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of the definition of working at the calling. Pursuant to this provision, a good-faith examination of the circumstances of each case must be conducted. Article V, Section 4, provides:
'[w]orking at the calling' shall be defined to include:
(d) Periods of unemployment where the member was available for and continuously and actively sought employment at the calling which shall be understood to require full compliance with the lawful rules of the referral service or hiring hall, if any, operated by the Local Union.
13. Under the facts of this case, Lewis was working at the calling prior to the election. Lewis has worked in various jobs and a review of the Local 1036 work records reflects that Lewis regularly appeared and signed the Local 1036 out-of-work list.
14. Lewis' part-time and seasonal businesses do not rise to the level of preventing him from serving as a Judge. Lewis operates a seasonal tax service on nights and weekends. Lewis also has a Asmall@ truck for hire. Lewis's work history, appearances at the Local 1036 hall, and signature on the out-of-work lists reflect that his primary source of livelihood is as a laborer. I recognize that work is sometimes difficult to secure and that members must temporarily engage in other endeavors to support themselves and their families. Lewis's work is not the kind of conduct the Constitution intended to exclude.
15. The Local 1036 Executive Board examined Lewis's qualifications and announced his selection to the membership. No objection to Lewis's qualifications as a Judge was raised until Plennevaux protested his dissatisfaction with the disqualification of some of the nominees for office.
1. Lewis was qualified to serve as a Judge.
2. The disqualification of unqualified nominees for office satisfied the applicable provisions of the Constitution. The individual nominees were told of the reason for their disqualification and, if dissatisfied, could have appealed.
3. Based upon the evidence presented, the Local Union 1036 Judges acted reasonably and supervised a fair election.
The Decision to not Elect
Auditors.
1. The evidence reflects that Local 1036 decided not to elect auditors. April 26, 1995, Minutes at 4. The evidence reflects that Local 1036 made this decision in good faith and in a democratic manner. Id. The members of Local 1036 supported this decision and no opposition was reflected in the records of Local 1036. Id. Also, Local 1036's past practice was not to elect Auditors because of an inability to attract nominees to the position.
2. Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution states that A[t]he officers of the Local Union shall consist of President, Vice-President, Recording Secretary, Secretary-Treasurer, Business manager, Sergeant-at-Arms, three Auditors and additional members of the Executive Board.@ (Emphasis added).
3. In order to be relieved of this requirement, a local union must seek and receive from the LIUNA General President, a variance, tolerance or exemption; otherwise, compliance is mandatory. LIUNA International Union Constitution, Article IX, Section 11(b).
Local 1036 must submit a request for a variance to the LIUNA General President, along with a justification for its request. If a variance is approved, Local 1036 may continue to use a professional auditing firm and will not be required to elect auditors. Absent the LIUNA General President's approval, Local 1036 must nominate and elect Auditors. The request for a variance, if any, must be filed with the LIUNA General President by January 2, 1996.
Plennevaux argues that a number of unqualified voters participated in the Local 1036 election. This issue was not raised in Plennevaux's May 22, 1995, Appeal to the LIUNA General Executive Board. It was raised for the first timed during the October 24, 1995, hearing before the LIUNA IHO.
Conclusion
The evidence I reviewed and telephone interviews I conducted reflect that only members who were qualified to vote did so, and that there were no unauthorized persons in the voting area on election day. See, e.g., Financial Report of LIUNA Local No. 1036 (annotated with voters' signatures).
The nomination protest of Plennevaux is DENIED. Local 1036 is required to elect auditors or seek a variance from the LIUNA General President. If a variance is applied for and granted, no further action is required. If a variance is not granted, Local 1036 must nominate and elect auditors. Any request for a variance should be filed with the LIUNA General President by January 2, 1996.
PETER F. VAIRA
INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER