In the Matter of Local
942
Laborers’ International
Union of North America
Independent Hearing
Officer
Decided October 25,
1996
This decision addresses the protest of Christopher White ("White") of his disqualification as a candidate for Delegate to the District Council at the same time as his candidacy for the combined office of Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer of Laborers International Union of North America ("LIUNA") Local Union 942, in Fairbanks, Alaska ("Local 942"). This decision also addresses White's protest of certain campaign activities during the Local 942 election and his protest of certain practices of LIUNA relating to advertising on a national basis.
A telephone hearing was
held by a representative of the Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on September
13, 1996.
Based upon the hearing
and further investigation, the protest is DENIED
Findings of
Fact
1.
White is a member in
good standing of Local 942.
2.
The nomination meeting
for the election of officers of Local 942 was held on April 26,
1996.
3.
White was nominated for
the positions of Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer and of Delegate to the
District Council.
4.
Following receipt of an
opinion from General President Coia on May 10,1996, the Judges of Election
(“Judges”) disqualified White from running for Delegate to the District Council
while simultaneously running for Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer, due to
the established LIUNA policy that such dual candidacy was improper. Article VI,
Section 4(b), of the Uniform Local Union Constitution ("Constitution") provides
that the Business Manager, upon election, automatically serves as a Delegate to
the District Council.
5.
White's assertion as to
the need for local unions, in general, to implement the job referral rules
agreed to between LIUNA and the U. S. Department of Justice is neither an
election nor a nomination protest. Moreover, there is no proof to establish that
the job referral rules in effect at Local 942 adversely had an impact on the
voting or nomination process.
6.
White alleges that the
removal of control numbers from upper corners of the mail-in ballots and
the placement of control numbers on the return envelopes compromised the
integrity of the secret ballot. White has not, however, produced any evidence or
any convincing argument that the integrity of the secret ballot was actually
compromised.
7.
White alleges that a
banner in the union hall prominently displayed the name of the incumbent
Business Manager underneath the union logo, and that this banner remained in
place for an unstated period of time until four days prior to the election. The
display of the union logo in any campaign literature or poster is improper
because it may give the impression that the local union is sponsoring the
candidate. However, since the membership of Local 942 is so widely scattered
geographically and the local union used a mail-in ballot, it is unlikely that
the existence of the banner could have substantially affected the outcome of the
election.
8.
White further alleges
that a notice on the union bulletin board announcing the election of delegates
was defaced by someone and not thereafter replaced. There is no evidence that
this situation substantially affected the outcome of the
election.
9.
White protests the
charges asserted by Local 942 for mailing labels for campaign material as being
too high by comparison to the charges for the same labels when provided by LIUNA
International. He does not, however, contend that he was charged more than any
other candidate by Local 942 for the labels that he did procure or that he was
discriminated against in any manner in that regard.
10. White also alleges that,
on a national basis, LIUNA spends too much on an advertising campaign on the
general topic of the cost of union reform. This is neither an election nor a
nomination protest.
Conclusions
1.
White's arguments as to
the impropriety of the LIUNA policy prohibiting simultaneous candidacy for the
offices of Business Manager and Delegate to the District Council are
unconvincing. LIUNA's prohibition of such dual candidacy is longstanding and
well reasoned in light of the provisions of Article VI, Section 4(b), of the
Constitution, which provides that the Business Manager also serves as a Delegate
to the District Council.
2.
White's allegations as
to the need for LIUNA to immediately implement the job referral rules on a
national basis and as to the impropriety of the national advertising campaign
being conducted by LIUNA are neither election nor nomination protests and are
beyond the scope of the IHO's jurisdiction.
3. The remainder of White's allegations concern incidents that could not have substantially affected the outcome of the election.
Decision
The protest of White is
DENIED.
PETER F.
VAIRA
INDEPENDENT HEARING
OFFICER