OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER
IN THE MATTER OF |
|
DOCKET NO. |
|
LOCAL UNION 872 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA |
|
99-31P |
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
|
||
This Order and Memorandum addresses the election protest of Allen Van (“Van”)
regarding the nomination and election of officers of the Laborers International Union of
North America (“LIUNA”) Local Union 872 (“Local 872”) in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Based upon interviews conducted by the Independent Hearing Officer’s staff and the
facts supplied by Van, the protest of Van is DENIED.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Van is a member in good standing at Local 872.
2. On May 1, 1999, Local 872 held its nomination meeting. Van was nominated and accepted candidacy for Recording Secretary.
3. During the nomination meeting Tony Valdez (“Valdez”) and Albert Garcia (“Garcia”) were involved in various campaigning activities.
4. Valdez is the incumbent Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer and Garcia is the incumbent Vice President and Assistant Business Manager. Both were candidates for reelection.
5. During the nomination meeting, Valdez and Garcia posted banners promoting their election in the union hall parking lot.
6. Also in the parking lot was a table at which Valdez and Garcia sold t-shirts promoting their campaigns.
7. Neither the t-shirt sales nor the banners obstructed the entrance to the union hall.
8. Van protested these campaign activities, claiming they were barred by the Uniform Local Union Constitution (“Constitution”).
9. In his protest, Van refers to a rule that campaign activities must be at least one hundred feet from the polling place.
10. The one hundred feet rule is a provision in the 1996 Election Rules: Rules for the 1996 LIUNA Delegate and International Officer Elections and Rank-and-File Election Referendum. The 1996 Election Rules were specifically adopted to apply only to the 1996 Delegate and International Officers Election. They do not apply to local union elections.
11. Title 29 CFR Chapter IV, Subchapter A, Part 452.111 applies here. That regulation provides,“There must not be any campaigning within a polling place and a union may forbid any campaigning within a specified distance of a polling place.”
12. This rule is interpreted to mean that each local may determine how close campaign activity may take place from the polling place.
13. General rules of fairness govern each local’s decision as to what distance is appropriate. See Title 29 C.F.R. Chapter IV, Subchapter A, Part 452.110. The term “fairness” shall include equal treatment of all candidates and the protection of each member’s right to vote unencumbered from intimidation and harassment.
14. The phrase polling place in the above rule is intended to refer to the polling place on the day of election not the location of the polling place at all times. The purpose of the rules is to allow the actual voting process to be unfettered by aggressive campaigning.
15. The campaign activities of Valdez and Garcia did not prevent other candidates from campaigning at the nomination meeting.
16. The campaign activities of Valdez and Garcia did not prevent any member from being nominated.
17. On May 10, 1999, Local 872 held its monthly out-of-work roll call from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
18. During roll call, it is the practice of members on the out-of-work list line up outside of the union hall.
19. During roll call, candidates from different slates conducted campaign activities among the out-of-work members while they stood in line outside the union hall. These candidates included Van, Valdez and Garcia. All candidates had an equal opportunity to campaign.
20. At the roll call, the Valdez/Garcia slate again used banners and tee-shirt sales as they did at the nomination meeting. The banners and t-shirts sales were again located in the parking lot.
21. At roll call, Van also passed out campaign materials.
22. Van stated that he felt intimidated by the activities of the Valdez/Garcia slate.
23. Van protested the campaign activities at roll call on the same grounds as his protest to the nomination meeting campaigning.
24. The IHO finds that the circumstances related by Van at the roll call could not have reasonably intimidated a candidate running for election, and the campaign activities of the Valdez/Garcia slate were proper.
25. Van also protested the roll call campaigning on the grounds that salaried union officials were campaigning during business hours.
26. The roll call was a legitimate forum for campaigning.
27. Those salaried union officials who, as Van indicated, “took the day off” were entitled to campaign are entitled to campaign. Any candidate running in the election was entitled to be there.
28. On May 12, 1999, Local 872 held a general membership meeting. At this meeting Valdez read a letter from the Department of Labor (“DOL”) regarding Angelo Bomasuto’s (“Bomasuto”) disqualification from candidacy because of a prior conviction.
29. Van states that the DOL letter was read in a derogatory tone.
30. No response to the DOL letter was allowed during the meeting.
31. Van protested Valdez’s reading of the DOL letter as a campaign activity at the union hall and was an attempt to negatively affect the campaigns of Van and the other members of Bomasuto’s slate.
32. Under the circumstances, Valdez’s reading the letter was proper and under the circumstance his tone of voice could not have affected the outcome of the election.
33. On May 18, 1999, a confrontation occurred between Dolan Bonner (“Bonner”), a candidate for Vice President, and Valdez.
34. According to Van, Valdez and ten to fifteen of his associates surrounded Bonner and accused him of making false accusation about Valdez.
35. The confrontation involved a heated argument but ended without violence.
36. The argument concerned alleged derogatory statements made by Bonner concerning Valdez.
37. Van protested these activities as a violation of campaigning rules.
38. The confrontation between Bonner and Valdez amounted to nothing more than name-calling. The actions of Valdez are regrettable but are not in violation of election procedures. There is no evidence that Bonner was prevented from further campaigning, nor is there evidence that other members were intimidated by the encounter. The IHO notes, however, that days of mob-style confrontations are long gone in LIUNA. The Ethical Practices Code guarantees every LIUNA member the right to speak out without fear. If such a confrontation took place as described, it was possibly a violation of the EPC. The IHO will order a further investigation into the matter.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The campaign activities by Valdez and Garcia at the nomination meeting and roll call were within the bounds of acceptable campaign practices.
2. Valdez’s reading of the DOL letter was proper.
3. The confrontation between Bonner and Valdez was not a campaign violation, but an investigation will be conducted to determine if the group’s action was a violation of the EPC.
DECISION
The protest of Allen Van is DENIED.
|
|
SIGNED
|
|
|
PETER F. VAIRA |
|
|
INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER |
|
Date: June 18, 1999 |
|
|
Allen Van Local Union 1410 |
|