IN THE MATTER OF
LOCAL UNION 190
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.
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
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.
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
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.
3. John Nardolillo's protest regarding Mirabile
is moot because Nardolillo won and Mirabile lost the election
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.
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
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
membership meeting which is constitutionally
required to occur between the Nomination Meeting and the election
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
40. Inspector Phillip D Smith ("Smith")
of the Inspector General's ("IG") staff interviewed
Ed Solar ("Solar"), the plane manager at the Spancrete
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
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
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
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
Incumbent Officers' Use of Old Union
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.§
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,
which was attached to and made a part of
the minutes of the meeting, included the official count of the
vote for each office.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.