OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER

LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA

IN THE MATTER OF
LOCAL UNION 190
ELECTION PROTEST

DOCKET NO.98-57P

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

This Order and Memorandum addresses the Election Protests (hereinafter the "Protests") filed by Carmen Francella ("Francella"), Michael Mirabile, ("Mirabile"), Michael Mclaine ("Mclaine"), John Nardolillo ("Nardolillo") and Robert Michel ("Michel") concerning the nomination and election officers of Laborers International Union of North America ("LIUNA") Local Union 190 ("Local 190"),in Albany. New York held on September 30, 1998.

PROCEDURAL. HISTORY

On January 28 1999, the Independent Hearing Officer ("IHO") issued Proposed Findings and Conclusions in the above captioned matter. The IHO requested that the parties submit objections and comments to the Proposed Findings and Conclusions, as well as arguments on what effect the events described therein had on the outcome of the election.

On February 4, 1999, Francella, through his attorney Karen Kimball, responded to the IHO's January 28, 1999 Order. In a general statement Francella objected to "most" of the Proposed Findings and Conclusions but did not comment on what effect the events described in the Proposed Findings and Conclusions had on the outcome of the election. See Letter of Karen Kimball to IHO, February 4, 1999. Mirabile, Mclaine, Nardolillo and Michel did not submit any objections or comments to the IHO.

On February 5, 1999, Local 190, through its attorney Eugene Devine ("Devine"), submitted objections and comments to the IHO's Proposed Findings and Conclusions. See

1

Letter of Eugene Devine to the IHO, February 5. 1999. Local 190 maintains that the election should stand due to the fact that none of the alleged violations either singularly or cumulatively, had any effect Of the outcome of the election. Id.

On February 8, 1999, the IHO sent a letter to Francelia's attorney requesting her to specifically comment on what effect of the events described in paragraphs 26-46 of the Proposed Findings and Conclusions (regarding failure to provide reasonable access to a membership list, failure to provide an accurate job site list and the prohibition of campaigning on the jobs sites had on Francella's ability to campaign and on the outcome of the election.

On February 12, 1999, Kimball responded to the IHO's February 8, 1999 letter stat¦ng, "the issue of the campaigning and access to the members is moot." Kimball argued that a new election of Local 190's officers should be held with rules set for fairness being established from the beginning. See Letter of Karen Kimball to IHO, February 12, 1999.

I will address the specific comments of Francella and Local 190 in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions set out below.

Based on the comments of Francella and Local 190 to the Proposed Findings and Conclusions, and the original investigation by IHO personnel, the protests are DENIED.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In the Local 190 election of officers held on September 30, 1998, Francelia was a candidate for Business Manager, Mirabile, a candidate for President, and Mclaine, a candidate for Executive Board member. All were urusuccessful.

2. The incumbent officers who successfully ran against the protestors were Joseph Zappone for Bus¦ness Manager, John Nardolillo for President, and Peter Nardolillo and Joseph Allegra for Executive Board members.

2

3. John Nardolillo's protest regarding Mirabile is moot because Nardolillo won and Mirabile lost the election for President.

4. Michel's protest regarding Mirabile is moot because Mirabile lost the election for President.

5. Article VI of the Uniform Local Union Constitution ("Constitution") provides for the nomination and election of officers for LIUNA local unions. Normally nominations for LIUNA local union officers are to take place in the month of April or May, with the date of the election to be set by the membership at the May meeting. See Article VI, Section 1(a) and Section 2(j). Article VI, Section 1(a) states that the nomination meeting ". . . shall 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 of the election year.... "

6. The 1998 Local 190 election of officers normally would have been held in May or June of 1998. On April 13, 1998, the IHO rendered a decision in a LIUNA disciplinary matter holding that Samuel Fresina ("Fresina"), who was at the time the Business Manager of Local 190 had committed certain acts in violation of the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure ("EDP"). On April 21, 1998, General President Coia stayed the election until 60 days following the decision of the Appellate Officer in Fresina's case. On July 22, 1998, the Appellate Officer sustained the IHO's decision. Pursuant to an agreement entered into with the GEB Attorney on August 10, 1998, Fresina was precluded from serving as an officer of Local 190 or any other LIUNA entity until the year 2000. Zappone was appointed the acting Business Manager by the Executive Board of Local 190 on or about August ll, 1998.

The Selection of the Date of the Nomination Meeting and Date of Election

7. On August 18, 1998, General President Coia lifted the stay of the Local 190 election and permitted Local 190 to schedule the Nomination Meeting for the election of

3

officers. General President Coia granted a variance to Article VI, Section 2(j)) of the Constitution permitting the date of election to be determined by the Local 190 membership at the close of the Nomination Meeting.

8. Local 190 scheduled the Nomination Meeting for August 31, 1998 and properly notified the general membership pursuant to Article VI, Section 1(b) of the Constitution.

9 On August 21 1998, Francella, through his attorney Kimball, filed a pre-election protest with the IHO. Francella contended that the Nomination Meeting was not scheduled in accordance with Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Constitution. He argued that there is a requirement that a regular general membership meeting be held after the Nomination Meeting at which time the membership is to set the date of election.

10. I held a telephone hearing on August 28, 1998. Kimball on behalf of Francella, Local 190's attorney Devine, and several members of Local 190's Executive Board attended the hearing. I agreed with Francella's argument and gave Local 190 until 5:00 p.m. that day to obtain an additional variance to Article VI, Section 1(a)) regarding the regular membership meeting required to be held between the Nomination Meeting and the date of election of officers. Transcript of August 28, 1998 ("Tr.I") 35-36. See In the Matter of Francella, IHO Order, 98S7P (August 28, 1998).

11. Pursuant to the August 28, 1998 Order, General President Coia granted an additional variance to Article VI, Section 2(j) stating, "While . . . the prior variance . . . contemplates that the intervention of such a regular meeting is not required, nonetheless . . . I hereby and explicitly grant a variance and tolerance as requested to allow the membership at the close of the nominations at the forthcoming nomination meeting to schedule the election without the intervention of a regular meeting between the nomination and the election." Letter of General President Coia, August 28, 1998. This variance removed the requirement of a general

4

membership meeting which is constitutionally required to occur between the Nomination Meeting and the election of officers.

12. On the basis of General President Coia's variance, I denied Francella's pre-election protests without prejudice to be raised again after the election. See Francella, IHO Order, 98-57P (August 31, 1998).

13. At the completion of the Nomination Meeting, the members of Local 190 scheduled the election of officers to be held on September 30, 1998 at the Local 190 union hall on Wemple Road in Glenmont, New York.

14. Francella contends that the variances prejudiced him by shortening the campaign period. The granting of a variance to a constitutional provision is an executive decision within the sound discretion of the General President. The IHO will not examine the granting of a variance unless it can be shown the General President abused his discretion, his decision was contrary to the Constitution or federal law, or that the variance would result in an injustice.

15. Local 190 holds its monthly general membership meetings on the first Monday of every month. The regularly scheduled general membership meeting for the month of September was cancelled because the first Monday was September 7, 1998, the Labor Day holiday. In the normal sequence, if there had been a general membership meeting on September 7, 1998, pursuant to Article VI Section 1(a), the Nomination Meeting would have been held no sooner than August 27. If the general membership met on September 7 and voted to set the election date within the mmimum date permitted by the Constitution1, the election would have been scheduled on September 22. This would have given the protestors 24 days from the date of the Nomination Meeting to the date of the election to campaign.

1Article VI, Section 2(j) provides that notice of an election should be sent to the members, no less than 15 days prior to the election.

5

16. The protestors contend that the date of the election should have been set by the membership at the next regularly scheduled membership meeting on October 5, 1998. Under this sequence, the Nomination Meeting would have been held no later than September 28. 1998. If the membership had voted on October 5, 1998 to set the election within the minimum time permitted, the date of election would nave been October 22, 1998. Thus, the protestors would have been given 24 days to campaign between the Nomination Meeting and election day.

17. Under the schedule provided by the variances, the protestors were given from August 31 to September 30, a total of 31 days to campaign. I find that the variances did not

unduly prejudice Francella's right to a reasonable campaign, and the General President did not abuse his discretion in granting the variances.

The Scheduling of the Date and Time of the Election and the Location of the Polling Place

18. Francella alleges that scheduling the election on a Wednesday, a work day, instead of a Saturday, the day historically chosen by Local 190 for elections, prejudiced the non-incumbents by preventing many of Francella s supporters from having the opportunity to vote. Francella has offered no evidence as to how the selection of Wednesday specifically prevented his supporters from voting.

19. Local 190 contends the day was chosen based upon consultation with its shop stewards who informed Zappone that a larger percentage of the membership would be able to attend on Wednesday, rather than on Saturday; therefore changing the day of the election to a Wednesday benefited the membership and actually increased voter turnout There is credible evidence that 60 percent of the membership voted on election day.

20. Francella protested the original hours set for the polls to be open, between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. Based on Francella's protest, I ordered that the polls be open two additional hours, from 12 00 p.m. to 8 00 p.m. See Francella, IHO Order. 98-57P (September 16, 1998). The

6

evidence shows that 30 percent of the members who voted did so during those two extended hours.

21. I find that there is no evidence that the scheduling of the election on Wednesday. September 30, deprived the members a reasonable opportunity to vote.

22. Francella also argues that the location of the election site should have been at the 890 Third Street address in downtown Albany, rather than at the Wemple Road union hall in Glenmont, New York. Local 190 has always held its regular membership meetings at the Third Street location.

23 The Local 190 union hail has been located on Wemple Road for five years. All of the daily activities of Local 190 take place at the union hall. The members regularly go to the union hail for information regarding work lists, dues payments, pension benefits, or welfare benefits. Local 190's Executive Board offices are located at the union hall.

24. Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the membership shall establish the time and place of its regular meetings. In this particular case the membership properly voted and selected the Wemple Road union hall as the place of election.

25. The Wemple Road union hall is a well-known location and is of often used by the Local 190 membership.

26. There was no evidence the Local 190 membership was denied a reasonable opportunity to vote by the use of the Wemple Road union hall. Local 190 provided a means for absentee balloting for those members who were unable to vote at that date, time and place specified. 29 C.F.R. ~ 452.94-95.

7

Local 190's Failure to Provide Candidates with Access to the Membership List

27. Francella alleges he was not provided with equal access to the Local 190 membership list. He stated that after numerous requests, he was finally shown the membership list on September 21, 1998.

28. Local 190 contends that Francella's request was not merely to view the membership list, but to be provided with a copy of the list, including the members phone numbers. See Letter of Eugene Devine to IHO. February 5, 1999, Tab B.

29. Title 29 U.S.C. § 481(c) provides, "Every bona fide candidate shall have the right, once within 30 days prior to and election of a labor organization in which he is a candidate, to inspect a list containing the names and last known addresses of all members of the labor organization." 29 U.S.C. § 481(c). (emphasis added).

30. In this age of computer technology, when lists can be generated quickly with little cost, it is disturbing to see requests for inspection of the membership list become an issue.

31. Francella had been demanding an opportunity to view the membership list since at least August 21, 1998. To delay giving him the opportunity to examine the list until September 21. 1998 is unreasonable, considering the Nomination Meeting was held on August 31, 1998. Although Francella's request was more demanding than the applicable law requires, Local 190 should not have delayed in allowing him to examine the membership list.

Local 190's Failure to Provide Sufficient Access to an Accurate Job Site List

32. Francella alleges that Local 190 denied him sufficient access to the list of contractors and job sites and that the incumbents had greater access to the job site lists than the non-incumbents.

33. I held a telephone hearing regarding this matter and other issues on September 16, 1998. Francelia requested a copy of the collective bargaining agreement, or a list of contractors,

8

so that he might obtain a list of job sites. Because of Local 190's valid concerns that the candidates contacting the contractors might be viewed as involving contractors in local union politics, I instead ordered Local 190 to provide a list of Local 190 job sites to any candidate who requested it. See Francella, IHO Order, 98-51P (September 16,1998).

34. Local 190 complied With the IHO's Order, but Francella did not receive the list of job sites until on or about September 23, 1998, eight days after the IHO's Order and seven days prior to the election.

35. Furthermore, the list did not state with any specificity the exact location of any job site. Considering the amount of effort required to produce it, the list was not adequate and there was an unreasonable delay in supplying it.

36. Local 190 argues that the Union does not keep a job site list on file at the union hall and made the IHO aware of the fact that if a list were to be created it would be subject to attack for being inadequate. The Local contends that it made the list according to the IHO's s directive to "do the best you can."

37. I am not persuaded by this argument. I do not find the list that was adequate.

Campaigning on the Job Sites

Francella alleges that Local 190's Executive Board instructed all contractors to prohibit campaigning by anyone on the job sites and alleges that the shop stewards immediately inform the Local if any candidate attempted to campaign on the respective job sites.. See Francella's Pre-election Protest Letter, September 6, 1998.

39. Spancrete is a major employer of LIUNA Local 190 members and it was in operation at the time of the election campaign.

40. Inspector Phillip D Smith ("Smith") of the Inspector General's ("IG") staff interviewed Ed Solar ("Solar"), the plane manager at the Spancrete job site.

9

41. Solar said he was approached by Mirabile and asked if he could campaign at the job site during coffee breaks and at lunch time. Solar explained to Mirabile that he had to "run it by" Phil Ottaviano, the Local 190 steward. Ottaviano made a phone call to the Local and then told Solar that no one could campaign on the job site at any time.

42. Solar told Mirabile that he could not campaign at the site.

43. Mirabile alleges that Local 190's prohibition did not prevent the incumbent union officers from campaigning at job sites under the guise of official union business. He alleges that Zappone and Charles Mirabile were seen campaigning at the Spancrete job site.

44. Solar told Smith that Zappone and Charles Mirabile toured the plant with the steward, Ottaviano, but did not campaign during their visit.

45. Robert Hoffman, a local 190 member, told Smith that Zappone and Charles Mirabile visited the Spancrete job site while he was working there, spoke with Local 190 members but did no campaigning and did not ask any member to vote for them or anyone else.

46. Smith interviewed another laborer at the Spancrete job site, Anthony Silvano ("Silvano"). Silvano stated that Michael Mirabile passed out campaign literature at the gate leading into the job site as the laborers left work.

47 I find that there is no evidence that the incumbent officers campaigned at the job site.

48. I find that Local 190 informed the contractor at Spancrete to prohibit the protectors from campaigning at that site.

49. Local 190 argues that since no one could campaign at the job sites, no candidate was disadvantaged. I am unpersuaded by this argument since the rule prohibiting campaigning on the job sites originated with a decision made by the incumbent candidates.

10

50. A local union may not use its power under the collective bargaining agreement to cause the contractors to deny opponents the opportunity to campaign. The decision to permit campaigning on a job site is to be made by the individual contractors, and if so, the decision is to apply to all candidates. A unilateral decision denying all candidates access to the job sites originating from the local union is a violation of the LIUNA Ethical Practices Code.

51. Local 190 argues that it did not tell the contractors to prohibit campaigning on their job sites, and that only one contractor's foreman asked a Local 190 steward if campaigning was permitted. Local 190 stated that the shop stewards were not informed to prohibit campaigning on the job sites, but simply told the stewards that they were not to campaign on the job sites during working hours. See Letter of Eugene Devine to IHO, February 5, 1999.

52. The facts regarding the Spancrete site are not consistent with this argument. Spancrete prohibited the protesters from visiting the site based on a directive from Local 190..

Incumbent Officers' Use of Old Union Letterhead

53. Francella alleges that the incumbent candidates used union personnel and funds in furtherance of their campaign by using union letterhead with Fresina's name still on it indentifying him as the Business Manager of Local 190

54. Francelia argues that by using the old letterhead, Zappone was able to associate his candidacy with Fresina, the recently removed Business Manager. Local 190 insists that the use of the old Local 190 letterhead was based solely on economic considerations. After Fresina's resignation, Zappone was appointed acting Business Manager pending the new election of officers. Any new letterhead would have had to reflect Zappone's provisional status. Considering the printing costs, Zappone decided to use the old letterhead. This was a reasonable decision and the presence of Fresina's name on the letterhead had no effect on the election.

11

Incumbents Use of a Union Facility for Campaign Purposes

55. Francella argues that the incumbent candidates held a campaign rally at the Tri-Cities Laborers' training facility on September 17, 1998 and denied the protestors equal use of the facility.

56. Local 190 has submitted proof that acting Business Manager Zappone wrote to Joseph Guemeri, the attorney appointed by the International Union to answer inquires about the election. Zappone requested permission to use the training pavilion for an election rally. See Letter of Eugene Devine to IHO, February 5, 1999.

57. On September 9, Guerrieri informed Zappone the incumbent candidates could use the pavilion, provided that the other candidates were advised that they could have equal access.Id.

58. The invitations were mailed to the membership on September 8 or 9, 1998. On September 11. 1998, the non-incumbents candidates were sent a separate letter that notified them that the facility was available for the¦r use at a reasonable cost. The incumbents received the letter on or about Monday, September 14, 1998.

59. Approximately 200 members of Local 190 attended the rally.

60. Evidence was presented by Local 190 on February 5, 1999 which shows that Peter Nardolillo wrote a check, numbered 3714, to the Tri-Cities Training facility on September 29, 1998 in the amountg of $200. The memo line states "Pavilion Rental (2 days)". In addition, the bank statement issued on October 6, 1998 for the same checking account reflects that check number 3714 was written for $200. See Letter of Eugene Devine to IHO, February 5, 1999, Tab A.

51. Non-incumbent candidates should be informed at the beginning of the campaign that a union facility is available to all candidates. See Brennan v. Sindicato Empleados de

12

Equipo Pesado, 370 F.Supp.872 (D.P.R.1972). There is an advantage to the incumbents by using union facilities after the campaign has started and then announcing that the facilities are open to all. The non-incumbent candidates are put in the position of attempting to play "catch-up ball" while the time to campaign dwindles. In this instance, however, once the protestors were notified they could use the facility, they had over two weeks to schedule a rally at the facility, including two weekends.

Local 190's Failure to Provide Election Rules to all Candidates

62. The protesters argue that Local 190 unequally distributed the election rules and regulations by which the election was run to all candidates and, that Local 190 through its attorney denied them access to the election rules and regulations until just prior to the election. It appears that the protestors are referring to a booklet containing the code of federal regulations and booklet published by the Department of Labor.

63. This issue has been blown out of proportion by the protecsors. On September 16, 1998, I personally sent a copy of the Department of Labor pamphlet, Conducting Local Union Officer Elections, A Guide for Election Officials ("Conducting Local Union Elections") to Francella by overnight mail.

64. Francella has made no demonstration how he was prejudiced by not having a copy of the election guide, the code of federal regulations, what he would has done differently had he been supplied with a copy of them, or how the incumbents gained an advantage by withholding them.

65. I find no evidence that Local 190 attempted to gain advantage from hiding the election reference materials.

13

Intimidation at the Election Site

66. Francella alleges that during polling hours, the incumbent candidates campaign workers stopped every car entering the union hall parking lot and handed out hats and sample ballots.

67. The entranceway to the union hall parking lot is of such design as to cause congestion when entering the parking lot. Although candidates' workers were seen throughout the area, no candidate received special treatment and all were given equal access to the voting members. Both the incumbents' and non-incumbents campaign workers approached the members' vehicles as they entered the parking lot, no one was seen actually forcing vehicles to stop and no improper conduct was reported.

68. Election Judge Nate Pulliam ("Pulliam") was assigned to watch the parking lot during voting hours in regard to campaign activities and instruct the members as to the voting procedure. Pulliam observed both the incumbents and non-incumbents talking to the members in their cars, but did not see them stopping the cars or preventing them from entering the parking lot.

69. Francella alleges that Pulliam was seen shaking hands with members as they arrived outside of the union hall.

70. Pulliam told Smith that he did not talk to the members about the candidates. When Pulliam learned that Francella and Mirabile were unhappy with his activities in greeting the members, Pulliam asked the if there were any problems with his activities, and both responded in the negative.

71. There was no evidence that Pulliam greeting the members as they approached the union hall to vote was ¦mproper.

14

The Use of the AAA in the Running of the Election

72. Francella protests that the Judges of Election ("Judges") and candidates' watchers were excluded from the election process in violation of the Constitution and the function of the Judges was usurped by officials from the American Arbitration Association ("AAA").

73. Pursuant to a request by Local 190, the AAA conducted the election of officers. Personnel from the AAA designed the ballots, ran the polls on election day, and counted the ballots. At the close of the polls on September 30, 1998 at 8:00 p. m., the AAA personnel met with the watchers and the Judges. During the counting of the ballots, the Judges maintained Distance of ten to fifteen feet away from the counting tables. The watchers maintained a distance of approximately thirty feet. A representative from the IG's office was also present.

74. The International Union has no policy on how local union officials are to interact with an independent agency hired to conduct an election. A union is legally permitted to employ an independent organization as its agent to handle the printing, mailing and counting of ballots in such election if all other requirements of federal law are met. 29 C.F.R.§ 452.98.

75. There is evidence that the AAA personnel completely superceded the Judges in counting the ballots, in determining whether the ballots were proper, and which ballots would be voided. The use of the AAA or another independent agency does not relieve the Judges of their duty to oversee the activities of that independent agency. The AAA was to insure against improper activity; however, the AAA personnel were not to completely usurp the Judges' functions.

76. On February 4, 1999, Francella contended that the September 30 election had never been made official because the membership had not been informed of the official count of the election votes. The minutes of the October 1998 General Membership meeting reflect that the Judges read their official report to the members and the members accepted it. The report,

15

which was attached to and made a part of the minutes of the meeting, included the official count of the vote for each office.

Incumbents' Improper Presence in the Counting Area

77. Francella alleges that some of the .incumbent candidates were permitted to enter the area of the building where the votes were being counted.

78. There is no evidence to support this claim. Moreover, a representative of the IG's office was present during the tallying of the votes and reported no interference by any party. The election was conducted by the AAA personnel; the AAA personnel reported no interference with the count.

Bias of Local 190's Attorney

79. Francella alleges that Local 190's attorney, Eugene Devine, was working on behalf of the incumbent officers and not as Local 190's attorney.

80. Local 190 was permitted to have counsel during the nomination and election process. It is the obligation of Local 190 to run a fair election and Local 190 cannot be faulted for using an attorney to advise those officers in charge of the election. See In the Matter of Local 652 (Castillo), IHO Order and Memorandum, 96-32P (June 4, 1996). Although the Local 190 attorney argued some positions which were rejected by the IHO, and some procedures adopted by Local 190 were altered by the IHO, it cannot be said from this record that the Local 190 attorney was working on behalf of the incumbents rather than the Local Union.

81. Francella alleges that it was improper for Kelly Fresina Moran ("Moran"), the former Business Manager's daughter and the Local 190 office secretary, to make the determination as to which members were allowed to vote in the election. There is no evidence



16

that Moran made any determinations without the assistance of the Secretary-Treasurer as required by Article VI, Section 3(c) of the Constitution.

82. Francella alleges that he was threatened by Nardolillo when he asked to speak at a retirees' meeting. There is no evidence to support this allegation.

83. Francella alleges that the non-incumbent candidates were not permitted to view the ballot prior to the day of the election. I note that Local 190 had drafted the ballot in a form that appeared to favor the incumbents and was not in the form suggested by the Department of Labor in the pamphlet, Conducting Local Union Elections. Based upon Francella's objections, I ordered the positions of the candidates names on the ballots changed prior to the printing of the final ballot. Francella has made no allegation that the final ballot was improper.

84. Francella alleges that Zappone's campaign materials were defamatory. The IHO will not attempt to judge the truth or falsity of campaign material; that is a campaign issue to be decided by the voters.

85. Francella alleges that the absentee ballots were not distributed to all members who requested them, the ballots contained an unreasonable time restriction, the number to call for an absentee ballot was not answered, or the requesting members' messages were not returned. There is no evidence of any impropriety in the handling of the absentee ballots or that they were not promptly and properly distributed.

86. Francella also alleges that members who were current in their dues were not allowed to vote. The evidence is to the contrary. Only one person was not permitted to vote because it was determined he had transferred his membership to another LIUNA local union and was not eligible

.

17

87. Mclaine protests that the Judges failed to contact him prior to the election to ask him how he wanted his name to appear on the ballot. Mclaine has not indicated if there was any error in the listing of his name or how any such error affected the outcome of the election.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The membership of Local 190 was not denied a reasonable opportunity to vote by the selection of the date of the election.

2. The membership of Local 190 was not denied a reasonable opportunity to vote by the nomination and election being held at the union hall on Wemple Road.

3. The protestors were not prejudiced by the variances in the election schedule granted by General President Coia. The protestors received a period of 31 days in which to wage their campaign. This period is far in excess of the minimum required by Article VI, Section 2(j) of the Constitution, more than they would have received had the normal election sequence taken place, and more time than under the sequence they requested.

4. Although Local 190 permitted Francella to review the membership list within 30 days of the election, there was an unreasonable delay from his request on August 28 until September 21 when he was permitted to see the list.

5. Local 190 unreasonably delayed supplying the protestors a list of job sites. Furthermore, the list was vague and not helpful.

6. Local 190 improperly issued instructions through its shop stewards to prohibit protestors from campaigning at work sites. This decision should have been made by the individual contractors. As a result, the protestors were denied access to the Spancrete site.

7. There is no evidence that the incumbents campaigned on job sites.

8. Although Local 190 should have notified all candidates at the outset of the

18

campaign that the Tri-Cities Training facility was available to all candidates, the notification sent by Local 190 gave the non-incumbent candidates well over two weeks, including two weekends to use the facility.

9. The incumbents candidates paid Local 190 for the use of the pavilion.

10. The Protestors were specifically requested to comment on how the events in the Proposed Findings and Conclusions adversely affected the Protestors' ability to campaign, and further how those events affected the outcome of the election. The Protestors submitted no such comments. Such comments would have been useful; for the only Protestors are in a position to demonstrate how they were prejudiced by the events so described.

11. Notwithstanding the Protestors' failure to comment, I have made an independent evaluation of the events described in the Proposed Findings and Conclusions.

l2. The Protestors had 31 days in which to wage a campaign. The Protesters were well aware of the Spancrete site, and although they were prohibited from campaigning on the site, they could greet workers as they left the job site. Although the job site list was provided late and was not very specific, I have no evidence from the Protestors as to how this site list hampered them or what efforts they made to follow the list.

19


Return to Laborers.org

(c) All original work Copyright Laborers.org 1998. All rights reserved..