U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Labor-Management Standards
Division of Enforcement
Washington, DC 20210
(202) 693-0143 Fax: (202) 693-1343
April 18, 2016
Dear :
This Statement of Reasons is in response to your complaint filed with the Department of Labor on August 24, 2015, alleging that violations of Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), as made applicable to elections of federal sector unions by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, occurred in connection with the April 13, 2015, election of officers conducted by American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 1206.
The Department of Labor conducted an investigation into your allegations. As a result of the investigation, the Department concluded that there were no violations of the LMRDA. The following is an explanation of this conclusion.
You alleged that the local’s incumbent executive board was improperly allowed on the ballot despite receiving union compensation. You asserted that receiving union compensation meant that the officers were not members in good standing of the union.
Section 401(e) of the LMRDA states that “every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (subject to section 504 and to reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed).” The sole qualifications for candidacy to AFGE local office are that the individual be a member in good standing (that is, current in dues), be a member of an AFGE local for one year prior to the close of nominations, and not be a member of any labor organization not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. AFGE Rules of Conduct for an Election part I, section 1(e); see also Local 1206 Constitution article VII, section 2(a).
The Department reviewed the dues payment histories of all candidates for LMRDA-covered offices. The investigation confirmed that all six were members in good standing when they were nominated and for the year prior to nomination. During the investigation, you acknowledged that, given that being in good standing means being current in dues, all of the incumbents were members in good standing. There was no violation.
You also alleged that the placement of the address on the ballot return envelope caused voted ballots to be returned to members. You stated that a worker at the Fairfield post office informed Burkhart that the placement of the return address on the back of the return ballot envelope would cause the post office’s processing machinery to mail the voted ballot back to the voter’s own address. Your observer, , identified eighteen members whose voted ballots were allegedly returned to them because of the return ballot envelope design.
The investigation revealed that, during the election, three members notified the local or UniLect that their voted ballots had been returned to them by mail. The investigation confirmed that UniLect sent each of those members a duplicate ballot. The local also contacted all members by email during the election to provide instructions about how to obtain duplicate ballots. During the investigation, the Department attempted to contact all eighteen members identified by as having had their ballots returned. The Department interviewed five of those members; none of them stated that their voted ballots had been mailed back to them at their own addresses. The Department also attempted to contact thirty members at random who did not return voted ballots. The Department interviewed six of those members; none of them received voted ballots mailed back to them. The investigation further disclosed that any mailing of voted ballots back to voters was caused by postal error, not by the union’s action. According to Priscilla Bailey, a U.S. Postal Service mailpiece design analyst, return ballots would have been mailed to the correct address as long as postal workers did not make errors. She explained that, if a problem occurs in the post office’s automated processing machinery, the mail is kicked out of the process and handled by a human. Postal workers are required to follow postal regulations by sending mail to the address on the side of the envelope with the stamp. There was no violation.
You also alleged that , another election committee member, and UniLect exhibited favoritism toward the incumbent candidates in several respects. Section 401(c) of the LMRDA requires unions to refrain from discrimination in favor of or against any candidate.
You alleged that accompanied President Gloria Salter to campaign meetings at the Mather and Martinez Veterans’ Affairs centers. During the investigation, denied campaigning for Salter or any other candidate at any time during the election. Your election observer, , stated that she did not see or hear campaign to anyone during the election. You did not present any evidence that campaigned on Salter’s behalf. There was no violation.
You alleged that helped mail Salter’s campaign literature on time but delayed your campaign mailing. Section 401(c) of the LMRDA requires unions to comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate to distribute campaign literature to the membership at the candidate’s expense. Candidates were given a choice as to how to
mail their campaign literature: they could use Precise Mailings’ services, or they could provide their own envelopes and work with election committee members to affix mailing labels supplied by the union. You chose the latter option. The investigation disclosed that you contacted on March 19, 2015, and scheduled an appointment with him for the morning of March 20, 2015, to address your envelopes. However, contacted you to cancel the appointment after a scheduling conflict arose. Election committee member then agreed to meet with you on the afternoon of March 20, 2015, to help address your envelopes. Your campaign literature was mailed on March 21, 2015. The ballot packages were mailed on March 23, 2015. Thus, your campaign literature was sent out two days after you made your request and two days before the ballots were mailed. The delay of one day caused by the need to reschedule an appointment with an election committee member did not violate the LMRDA. There was no evidence that the union failed to comply with your request to distribute your campaign literature. There was no violation.
You also alleged that Bayani incorrectly informed you that the local had only 1,000 members, causing you to mail campaign literature to only 1,000 addresses instead of to the complete membership. The investigation confirmed that Gallagher was prepared with mailing labels for 1,092 union members but that you brought only 1,000 envelopes with you to your appointment. During the investigation, Bayani denied telling you that there were only 1,000 union members. He stated that he directed you to ask Gallagher for an exact count. However, Gallagher stated that you never asked her for an accurate count. Further, Gallagher provided a signed statement attesting that she overheard you telling Leno that you brought only 1,000 envelopes because that was all you could afford. After you learned on March 20, 2015, that there were 1,092 mailing labels, you had three days before the ballots were mailed to purchase envelopes for the remaining 92 union members, but you did not do so. There was no violation.
For the reasons set forth above, the Department concludes that there was no violation of the LMRDA. Accordingly, I have closed the file in this matter.
Sincerely,
Sharon Hanley
Chief, Division of Enforcement
cc: J. David Cox, Sr., National President
American Federation of Government Employees
80 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Gloria Salter, Local President
AFGE Local 1206
Beverly Dankowitz, Acting Associate Solicitor
Civil Rights and Labor-Management Division