The Department’s investigation included an examination of the delegate elections for 11 of these 44 public sector locals, including your local, Local 1033, to determine whether the delegates from these non-LMRDA covered locals had been properly elected. The eleven locals examined were Locals 3570, 3865, 4527, 6355, 1081, 2911, 1183, 3178, 3179, 9110 and 1033. The investigation established that four of the eleven locals, Locals 3570, 3865, 4527 and 6355 had properly elected the delegates that they sent to the CWA election. The 4,801 votes carried by the delegates from these four locals were, therefore, proper.
An examination of Locals 1081 and 2911 revealed that they failed to properly elect their delegates. Local 1081 elected its delegate by a show of hands, not by secret ballot, and the delegate that represented Local 2911 was appointed not elected by secret ballot. These two locals carried 776 delegate votes. The participation of these delegates in the CWA national officer election was a violation of Title IV of the LMRDA.
For the remaining five locals (1183, 3178, 3179, 9110 and 1033), the Department’s examination of whether these locals properly elected its delegates was inconclusive. However, the investigation revealed that because of the vote margins for each contested national officer position any violation with respect to the delegate elections in these locals would not have affected the outcome of the election. A review of the delegate votes from the public sector locals revealed that counting the 776 improper delegate votes (Locals 1081 and 2911) and all of the votes of the 38 other public sector locals whose election is in question, it would have been mathematically impossible for the cumulative votes cast by the delegates from these 40 locals to affect any of the margins of victory.
There were six contested national officer positions that delegates from the 44 public sector locals cast ballots for at the convention.1 The accompanying table shows the vote margins for the relevant races. With the exception of vice president, District 3, each of the winning candidates received a majority of the votes cast on the first ballot. Since the vice president, District 3, race required a runoff, the vote margins for both the 1st ballot and runoff ballot are reflected in the table. In all cases, the margin of victory exceeds the total possible votes cast by delegates of the above-referenced 40 public sector locals. Thus, there was no possible effect on outcome for these six contested national officer positions.
1 Although the position of CWA national vice president, telecommunications and technology was contested, no delegates from the 44 non-covered local unions voted for that position.

Position
Vote Margin
Total Votes Carried by Delegates in 40 Public Sector Locals (does not include delegate votes carried by Locals 3570, 3865, 4527, 6355, the 4 locals that properly elected delegates)

Secretary-Treasurer
44,414
28,116

Diversity VP, SE Region
32,145
2,930

Diversity VP, CEN Region
99,536
2,147

VP, District 3, 1st Ballot
5,293
2,017

VP, District 3, Runoff
13,075
2,017

VP, District 7
5,466
2,160

VP. District 9
8,738
1,289


You also alleged that members were reluctant to seek office because of restrictive CWA policies. The investigation did not substantiate your claim. You did not offer any specific policies, facts, or witnesses to support your allegation. Rather, you asserted generally that the CWA national officer election process was designed to favor incumbents and that it was pointless to seek office. Neither of you wished to run for national office nor nominate anyone for a CWA officer position. Further, neither of you indicated that you were too intimidated to seek nomination nor knew of anyone who was intimidated. There was no violation.
Your complaint to the Department made allegations that, even if true, would not constitute violations of Title IV of the LMRDA, and other allegations that were not timely invoked and exhausted by you in accordance with CWA’s election protest procedures and the requirements of the LMRDA. See 29 U.S.C. § 482. Consequently, the Secretary lacks the authority to consider the merits of these issues and they were not investigated. 29 C.F.R. § 452.135 (a).
For the reasons set forth above, the Department has concluded that there was no violation of Title IV of the LMRDA that may have affected the outcome of the election, and I have closed the file regarding this matter.


Sincerely,

Sharon Hanley
Chief, Division of Enforcement

cc: Chris Shelton, President
Communications Workers of America
501 3rd Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Beverly Dankowitz, Acting Associate Solicitor
Civil Rights and Labor-Management Division