Docket No. 97-47P

Decided January 27, 1998

Order and Memorandum

This Order and Memorandum addresses the individual nomination protest of Joseph Citizen (“Citizen”) regarding alleged irregularities in the nomination process of the Local Union 762 (“Local 762”) Election.

Based on the interviews conducted and further investigation by the Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”), the protest of Citizen is GRANTED. There will be a rerun nomination and election for the delegate to the District Council from Local 762.

Findings of Fact

1. Citizen is a member in good standing of Local 762 located in Lafayette, Louisiana.

2. Prior to the May 16, 1997 nomination meeting, Citizen informed Business Manager Dale Brasseaux (“Brasseaux”) of his desire to run for both Sergeant-at- Arms and delegate to the District Council.

3. Brasseaux incorrectly informed Citizen that he could not run for both positions simultaneously. I find that Citizen relied upon that advice and did not seek the nomination for delegate to District Council.

4. On May 16, 1997, nominations for all Local 762 offices were held. Citizens did not attend this meeting. Brasseaux nominated Citizen for Sergeant- at-Arms which Citizen later accepted. No members were nominated for the delegate position. There was only one candidate nominated for each office. Thus, all nominees were declared to be duly elected, in accordance with Article VI, Section 2(e) of the Uniform Local Union Constitution (“Constitution”).

5. At a July 25, 1997 Local 762 Executive Board meeting, a motion was made by John Roger and seconded by Ricky Brasseaux, to appoint Ronnie Martin to be a delegate to the District Council. Ronnie Martin is the Local 762 Recording Secretary. Citizen and Gene Robin strenuously objected to Martin's appointment based on Citizen's prior conversation with Business Manager Brasseaux regarding a member’s ability to hold two offices.

6. Based on these events, the Executive Board then decided to fill the empty delegate position by interviewing candidates. Interviews were conducted by the Executive Board on November 22, 1997. Three candidates were interviewed, Joseph Citizen, Ronnie Martin, and Harold Rachal (“Rachal”). Rachal was chosen to fill the delegate position. Rachal is an Executive Board member.

7. Citizen then filed a protest with this office on August 18, 1997.

Discussion

Citizen's nomination protest is dated August 18, 1997, and, in accordance with Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution is untimely. The provision states in pertinent part:

Any member aggrieved with the nomination process must appeal directly to the Independent Hearing Officer prior to the holding of the election. Any member aggrieved with the conduct of the election must protest directly to the Independent Hearing Officer within thirty days after the election.

Article XII, Section 8.

Citizen’s protest, however, is based upon actions he took upon the incorrect advice of Brasseaux, the Business Manager. Citizen became aware of the proper constitutional procedures regarding delegates only after the attempted appointment of Ronald Martin to the Local 762 delegate position at a July 25, 1997 Executive Board meeting. Shortly after this meeting, on August 18, 1997, Citizen filed his protest. Citizen, therefore, acted in good faith upon his allegations as soon as he became aware that Brasseaux's advice was incorrect. Under these limited and unusual circumstances where the member relied upon the advice of the Business Manager, the chief executive officer of the union, the requirements of Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution will be waived.

There is a prohibition against a member holding two offices at the same time. In Brasseaux' s defense, the correct interpretation of this issue requires a reading of several constitutional provisions.

Article VI, Section 1(g), of the Constitution provides:

Nominations shall be made in the following order: President, Vice President, Recording Secretary, Secretary-Treasurer, Business Manager-Delegate, Sergeant-at-Arms, Auditors (3), Executive Board Members.

This order is subject to combination of offices, when approved, in accordance with constitutional provisions. No member may be a candidate for, nor hold more than one office, except where a combination of offices has been approved, in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution;

This prohibition applies to holding more than one of the offices listed in Article VI, Section 1(g).

Article VI, Section 4(b) of the Constitution provides:

The Business Manager of a Local Union elected in conformity with the provisions of Article VI of the Uniform Local Union Constitution shall, by virtue of such election, serve as a delegate from his Local Union to the appropriate District Council and all other local labor bodies with which the Local Union is affiliated. All other delegates of a Local Union to a District Council shall be nominated and elected in accordance with all the constitutional provisions dealing with qualifications, nominations and election of officers of Local Unions, except that the Executive Board may, in advance of the nomination of officers, determine that either its President or Secretary-Treasurer (but not both) shall, by virtue of his elected office, also serve as a delegate.

It has long been the position of the International Union that the delegate to the District Council may be another officer of the local union. See Opinion Letter from General President Angelo Fosco to Business Manager, Local Union 81 of February 7, 1991.

Conclusions

1. The Constitution prevents a member from running for two local union offices listed in Article VI, Section 1(g) of the Constitution. The Constitution does not prevent a member from running for delegate to District Council and a Local Union office. Brasseaux’s advice to the contrary was incorrect.

2. Normally, a member making a protest must have gone through the steps to perfect his claim; i.e., that person must have been nominated or attempted to be nominated and have been rejected, to have standing to file a protest. The facts here are peculiar, Citizen wanted to run for office but was given incorrect advice by the Business Manager. The facts here disclose that if Citizen had been properly advised of his choices, he would have run for the delegate position.

Decisions

The protest of Citizen is GRANTED. The election for delegate to the District Council will be rerun including the nomination process, as soon as reasonably possible.

PETER F. VAIRA

INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER