Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

u.s.

Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards


Los Angeles District Office
915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 910
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 534-6405 Fax: (213) 534-6413

December 23,2010

Mr. Monty Kroopkin Case Number: 520-13147(71)


Reform221 Slate LM Number: 543-598
4440 33rd Place
San Diego, CA 92116

Dear Mr. Kroopkin:

This is to advise you ofthe disposition of your complaints filed with the Secretary of Labor on:
August 19, 2010; August 24, 2010; August 31, 2010; and October 1, 2010, alleging that
violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) occurred
in the remedial election supervised by this Agency.

Specifically, your August 19,2010, and October 1,2010 protests alleged that the local failed to
provide adequate safeguards when: (1) Election Committee Member BJ Gloudon expressed
partiality by sending an email stating, "You Are Not Ready!" to the Reform221 slate; (2)
incumbent slate observer Kathy Griffee handled and tampered with ballots during the ballot
tally; and (3) the failure to use printing plates allowed Merriman River Group (MRG) to commit
ballot fraud.

In your August 24,2010, and October 1,2010, protests, you alleged that union funds were used
when: (1) Local 221 staff members Kay Ryan, Lois Balfour, and Local 221 President Eric Banks
campaigned at union meetings on union time in their official capacity; (2) Local 221 facilities
were used when staff member Jacob Regalado managed the incumbent slate's campaign while
working at the union hall on union time; and (3) Local 221 President Eric Banks issued two
letters to the membership using union resources as a pretext to campaign.

In your August 31, 2010, protest you alleged disparate candidate treatment when the union
allowed the incumbent slate to distribute an E-blast without identifying any candidate(s) as the
originator of the E-blast.

In your October 1, 2010, protest you alleged that ineligible members were permitted to vote
when the union allowed at least two individual non-members of Local 221 to cast ballots in the
election. You also alleged improper restrictions were placed upon observers when the union
prohibited observers from being able to observe the names and addresses during the verification
of voter eligibility, and when observers were denied the opportunity to view each ballot as they
were counted. Furthermore, your October 1, 2010, protest alleged the union failed to provide
candidates the right to inspect the membership list when candidates were denied the right to
inspect the membership list due to the restricted times for which the list was made available.

Our investigation of these allegations did not establish a violation that may have affected the
outcome of the election. The investigation revealed the following results:

-----~------ ---------------------- --------- -


Mr. Monty Kroopkin
December 23,2010
Page 2 of 4

In regards to your allegations of inadequate safeguards, the investigation disclosed that the email
received by the RefOlm221 slate had originated from Gloudon's email account; however, at least
two other members of Gloudon's family also had access to her email account. There was no
evidence that the email had been distributed to anyone other than the Reform221 slate or was it
found to have been posted anywhere as an overt act of campaigning against the Reform221 slate.
Furthermore, the email message, "YOU ARE OT READY!", lacks clear meaning and does not
constitute campaigning. Gloudon acknowledged to the Election Supervisor that as an election
committee member she should remain impartial. There was no Title IV violation with respect to
the protested email.

The investigation found no evidence of Griffee handling or tampering ballots during the ballot
tally. Observers and witnesses were unable to confirm Griffee's handling or tampering of any
ballots as alleged. The investigation also found no evidence of ballot fraud by MRG for not
using a printing plate to print ballots. Neither Title IV nor the regulations requires the use of
printing plates as a means to print ballots. MRG was only responsible for printing ballots. Will
Copy & Print was retained to print the outer envelopes, secret ballot envelope, and the return
envelopes. Upon completing the printing, MRG remitted the ballots to the Election Supervisor
and Will Copy & Print remitted the envelopes to the Election Supervisor. MRG and Will Copy
& Print confirmed that no other ballots or envelopes were produced thereafter. The ballot
material was then delivered to Select Mailing by the Election Supervisor for processing and
distribution. The Election Supervisor took custody of all the unused ballots and envelopes from
Select Mailing after the August 21, 2010, ballot mailing. All duplicate ballot requests were
handled by the Election Supervisor. Thus, there were no violations of the LMRDA's adequate
safeguard provision.

In regards to your allegations of the use of union funds, Ryan and Balfour deny that they
attended worksite meetings in the months of July or August. Banks confirmed that he had
attended several union meetings as part of his regular responsibilities as Local 221 President.
The nature and purpose for attending meetings were for official union business and as a
substitute for worksite organizers that were on leave. Available witnesses confirmed that no
campaigning occurred during the worksite meetings or during the non-worksite meetings in
which Ryan, Balfour, or Banks attended. The witnesses report that Banks slate literature was
distributed at the conclusion of non-work site meetings. This would constitute incidental
campaigning and is not a violation of the no campaigning at work site meeting rule. It was also
confirmed that Local 221 had remapped the routes used to schedule worksite meetings to provide
consistency in holding worksite meetings. The apparent increase in work site meetings was a
result of such efforts by the union to promote consistency in their union worksite meetings. The
investigation found no evidence of Regalado using union facilities while working for the union
to conduct campaign efforts. Regalado managed the incumbents' campaign in the privacy of his
own horne. In addition, Regalado took accrued leave during the course of the election to manage
the incumbents' campaign. The investigation further disclosed that upon review by the Election
Supervisor of the two letters issued by Banks to the Local 221 membership, the contents of such
letters failed to constitute a violation. Thereby, there were no violations of the LMRDA's use of
union funds provision.

---------- --------
Mr. Monty Kroopkin
December 23,2010
Page 3 of 4

In regards to your allegation of disparate candidate treatment, the investigation disclosed that the
email sent on Monday, August 30,2010, at 10:00 pm, entitled "Rebuild, Renew, and Restore
Our Membership Together," failed to identify any candidate(s) as the originator of the E-blast as
was instructed by the established guidelines. On September 2, 2010, the Election Supervisor
issued an official notice as a remedy through the E-blast system identifying the originators of the
aforementioned anonymous E-blast as the entire Getting It Done Together slate. As such, there
was no violation of the LMRDA's disparate candidate treatment provision that may have
affected the outcome of the election.

In regards to your allegation of ineligible members being permitted to vote, the investigation
disclosed that all ballots counted were from eligible full dues paying members. Mary Grillo's
ballot was the only ballot returned from Washington, DC, but it was not counted in the tally.
Eliseo Medina neither received a ballot nor cast a ballot during the election. The investigation
found no evidence of any ineligible member's vote being counted in the election. Therefore,
there was no violation of the LMRDA's voter eligibility provision.

In regards to your allegations of improper restrictions placed upon observers, the investigation
determined there were no restrictions placed upon the quantity of observers allowed by
candidates to observe the tally process. MRG used four laptop scanning stations to scan the bar
codes on each of the returned ballots to determine eligibility. All observers were given fair and
reasonable treatment in observing the four stations used to check voter eligibility. The use ofthe
laptop stations failed to constitute a valid restriction for observers to reasonably observe or
challenge ballots, as was evident by the successful challenge of Grillo's ballot. Furthermore,
observers were provided the option to review each of the scanned ballots at the conclusion of the
scanned tabulation. No observer at that time expressed any indication that they would like to
review the scanned ballots. Because observers may not have been able to observe the votes on
the ballots and how they were tallied, OLMS conducted a recount of the two closest races and
observers were invited to attend. The OLMS recount found no significant irregularities in the
balloting and deemed the ballot tally conducted by MRG on September 21,2010, as accurate.
Therefore, there were no violations of the LMRDA's observer provision which may have
affected the outcome of the election.

Lastly, in regards to your allegation of candidates being denied the right to inspect the
membership list, the investigation found that no candidate had invoked their right to inspect the
membership list. Local 221 President Eric Banks was not given access to the membership list as
alleged. The list was maintained exclusively by Local 221 Controller Dan Marks. In addition, at
no time did any candidate request to review the list on any other day or time outside the regular
business hours of the union. Furthermore, there is no obligation or provision that requires the
union to provide any special treatment or accommodation for any candidate to inspect the
membership list outside of normal union business hours. Thereby, there was no violation of the
LMRDA's inspection of the membership list provision.

Based on the results of our investigation, I have concluded that no violations occurred that may
have affected the outcome of the supervised election; therefore, I am dismissing your complaint.
Mr. Monty Kroopkin
December 23,2010
Page 4 of 4

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Election Supervisor Seyi Olowolafe at
(213) 534-6405 ext 229.

Sincerely,

q~:J/
Alan Weiss
District Direc

--------------------------------