In the Matter of Local 220
Laborers’ International Union of North America
Independent Hearing Officer
Docket No. 96-72P
Decided November 22, 1996
Order and Memorandum
This decision addresses the protest of Rodney Wilson ("Wilson") arising from the June 18, 1996, election ("Election") of the Laborers' International Union of North America ("LIUNA") Local Union 220 (“Local 220”) in Bakersfield, California. Wilson was a candidate for President of Local 220 in the Election.
Wilson lodged a protest through a letter dated July 16,1996. A telephone hearing was held on September 18, 1996, by an attorney for the Independent Hearing Officer ("IHO").
Based upon the testimony presented in the hearing and further investigation conducted by the IHO, the protest is DENIED.
1. Wilson is a member in good standing of Local 220 in Bakersfield, California.
2. The Nomination Meeting for the election of officers of Local 220 was held on April 24, 1996.
3. Wilson was nominated and found qualified as a candidate for the office of President of Local 220. The slate of candidates on which Wilson ran was, however, unsuccessful.
4. At the Nomination Meeting, nominations were accepted for the combined offices of Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer.
5. Wilson asserts that the offices of Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer were never properly combined and that the Election was, therefore, rendered invalid.
6. The records of Local 220 show that on February 21, 1996 the Executive Board of Local 220, recommended that the members of the Local approve the combination of the offices of Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer.
7. The records of Local 220 also show that on February 21, 1996, the membership of Local 220 voted to accept the minutes of the Executive Board meeting of February 21, 1996, and the recommendations of the Executive Board made at that meeting.
8. On February 26, 1996, the Business Manager of Local 220 wrote to LIUNA General President Coia seeking approval to combine the Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer offices.
9. By letter dated April 12, 1996, General President Coia granted permission for the combination of offices.
10. Wilson also alleges that the name of Alvin (Sonny) Worthy ("Worthy") was not properly listed on the ballot as a candidate for business manager. The name listed on the ballot was Alvin Worthy, without the nickname of Sonny.
11. I find that there is no proof to establish that voters were mislead by the non-inclusion of the Worthy nickname on the ballot.
12. Wilson further asserts that a suspended member of Local 220 received a ballot by mail. There is no proof, however, that the suspended member actually voted in the Election.
13. I find that, even if the suspended member of Local 220 had voted in the Election, there is no proof that his vote could have substantially affected the outcome of the Election.
14. Wilson asserts that, subsequent to May 31, 1996, he asked several times to see the list of suspensions, transfers and initiations for February, March, April, and May 1996, and that he was refused access each time by the incumbent Business Manager of Local 220.
15. I find that there is no proof that any lists of suspensions, transfers or initiations existed independently of the Local 220 membership list. I further find that the Local 220 membership list was provided to Wilson and Alvin Worthy three times during the thirty days prior to the Election.
16. Wilson also asserts that all of the candidates were in the room where all of the ballots were being counted after the Election.
17. There is no evidence to establish that the presence of all of the candidates during the counting of ballots in any way affected the outcome of the Election.
18. Wilson also asserts that the incumbent Business Manager drove in a union car while on union time to the homes of retired Local 220 members to pickup on the day after the ballots were mailed. He further asserts that the business manager and office staff were calling retired members concerning their ballots during working hours and while on the union payroll.
19. Wilson offered no proof to substantiate his assertions relating to the retrieval of ballots from retired members or the placement of telephone calls to retired members, since he could provide no corroboration of his allegations and since he lacked direct knowledge of the alleged misconduct.
1. Article IV, Section 2, of the Uniform Local Union Constitution ("Constitution") provides that a combination of offices is permitted when voted by the membership and approved by the LIUNA General President, as long as all such action has been taken before the Nomination Meeting.
2. In this instance, all necessary action was taken and all necessary approvals were secured for the combination of offices prior to the April 24, 1996 Nomination Meeting.
3. The absence of the nickname of Worthy from the listing on the ballot could not have substantially affected the outcome of the Election.
4. The receipt of a ballot by a suspended member of Local 220 could not have substantially affected the outcome of the Election, notwithstanding the lack of evidence that such individual actually voted.
5. Title 29 C.F.R. Section 452.71 requires that candidates be given an opportunity to inspect the membership mailing list once within thirty days of an election. Wilson was allowed to inspect the membership list three times within thirty days of the Election. There is no proof to establish that separate lists of suspensions, transfers, and initiations actually existed, but even if they did, Wilson had ample access to the compendium of the then-current membership of Local 220 at the time that he requested in accordance with legal mandates. There is no violation of any constitutional provision in this regard.
6. There is no proof that improper solicitation of votes occurred during the Election.
7. There is no proof that improper computation of votes occurred after the balloting in the Election.
The protest of Wilson is DENIED.
PETER F. VAIRA
INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER