OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER
IN THE MATTER OF |
|
DOCKET NO. |
|
LOCAL UNION 1104 CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI |
|
99-34P |
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
This Order and Memorandum addresses the nomination protest of Roger Smith (“Smith”), an unsuccessful candidate for Business Manager/Secretary Treasurer and Delegate to District Council, regarding the nomination process of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (“LIUNA”) Local Union 1104 (“Local 1104”) in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Based upon an investigation by the staff of the Independent Hearing Officer, the protest of Smith is DENIED.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Roger Smith is a member in good standing of Local 1104.
2. On April 30, 1999, Local 1104 mailed a notice to its membership stating that the nomination meeting for the election of officers would be held on May 7, 1999.
3. The nomination meeting was held on May 7, 1999.
4. Smith was nominated for Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer and Delegate to the District Council. Smith was opposed by Ernie Brown (“Brown”).
5. In error, the April 30, 1999, notice was not sent to approximately 100 members of Local 1104.
6. There was no bad faith associated with failure to notify the 100 members.
7. Article VI, Section 1 (b) of the Uniform Local Union Constitution (“Constitution”) requires that notice of the nomination meeting be mailed “….no less than seven days prior to the nomination meeting... to each good-standing member of the Local Union....”
8. On May 10, 1999, members of the Executive Board of Local 1104 contacted the Eastern Missouri Laborers’ District Council seeking advice regarding the error and was advised that a new nomination meeting should be held with proper notice sent to all members.
9. On May 11, 1999, each member of Local 1104 was mailed a notice that stated that a new nomination meeting would be held on May 21, 1999.
10. The nomination meeting was held on May 21, 1999.
11. Smith was again nominated for Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer and Delegate to the District Council. This time Smith was opposed by Bill Borneman instead of Brown.
12. Smith protests the new nomination meeting on the grounds that the original May 7, 1999, nomination meeting should have been binding pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 (f) of the Constitution, which provides “Once a nomination is accepted, the nominee has no right to withdraw his candidacy prior to the election.”
13. On May 27, 1999, Local 1104 held its general membership meeting for May.
14 Smith also argues that the nomination meeting was in violation of Article VI, Section 1 (a) of the Constitution, which requires that the nomination meeting “….be held not less than ten days nor more than twenty days prior to a regular meeting of the Local Union to be held in the month of May.”
15. The May 27, 1999, general membership meeting was held only six days after the May 21, 1999, nomination meeting.
16. The election was held on June 19, 1999.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Local 1104 was required to hold a new nomination meeting. The purpose of Article VI, Section 1 (f) of the Constitution is to safeguard against individuals intentionally manipulating the ballot. That provision is not applicable to the candidates nominated at the May 7, 1999, nomination meeting because the nominations were properly voided to comply with a constitutional requirement. There was not an intentional manipulation.
2. Although the period between the nomination meeting and the general membership meeting was less than required, this period is not as critical to the election process as the requirement for notice before the nomination meeting, and the requirement for a reasonable opportunity to campaign. Smith does not indicate any prejudice to him as a result of the shortened time period.
3. Title 29 C.F.R. Chapter IV, Subchapter A, Part 452.79, requires a reasonable period prior to election during which office-seekers and their supporters may engage in campaigning…..”
4. The election was held at least 15 days after the notification of the election was sent as required by Article VI, Section 2 (j) of the Constitution, which time is reasonable pursuant to Title 29 C.F.R., Subchapter A, Part 452.79. All candidates had a reasonable opportunity to campaign.
5. None of the deviations in procedure discussed above could have affected the outcome of the election.
DECISION
The nomination protest of Smith is DENIED.
|
|
s/ Peter F Vaira
|
|
|
PETER F. VAIRA |
|
|
INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER |
|
Date: July 1, 1999 |
|
|
Roger Smith (via overnight mail) Local Union 1104 (via facsimile) Eastern Missouri Laborers’ District Council (via facsimile)
|
|