May 29, 2004
TO: Ann Woodward, United States Department of Labor, BNA
FROM: Tommie Hutto-Blake, American Airlines Flight Attendant, LGA
RE: Election Complaint concerning Internal Rules and Results of the 2004 APFA National Officer Run-Off Election, Canvassing Date - 3/12/04
In accordance with my rights as a candidate for union office during the most recent national officer election (see above) of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), I have completed my internal election complaint pursuant to the APFA Constitution and by APFA notice dated May 18, 2004 [Exhibit #8], I am free to pursue my rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).
As a thirty-four year American Airlines Flight Attendant (FA), a long time union advocate, and former national officer, I ran for the office of APFA president in this most recent national officer election of my union. During the "primary" of this said election, out of a field of six candidates, I received the most votes of any of the presidential candidates (Hutto-Blake 4461 votes {36%} and Ward 3599 votes {29%} [Exhibit #2]).
In accordance with the APFA Constitution, Article VI, Nominations and Elections [Exhibit #1], as outlined in Section 5, paragraph H, a run-off ballot was held between these top two candidates. The run-off ballot was initially counted on March 10, 2004 [Exhibit #3]; recounted on March 11, 2004 [Exhibit #4], with a second recount of two bases on March 12, 2004. These said bases (LGA & IMA) had been mistakenly "co-mingled" during a fire alarm on day one of this run-off process.
Following these three days of separate ballot counts, the APFA National Ballot Committee in conjunction with Whitley Penn and Associates, certified the election results on March 12, 2004 [Ward 7,398 votes and Hutto-Blake 7,393 votes]. On March 23, 2004 [Exhibit 5, emphasis added], I filed my election complaint in accordance with my union's constitution (Article VI, Section 6) asking both the current APFA Secretary and the APFA Secretary elect to direct the National Ballot Committee (NBC) to begin a through investigation and render a decision regarding this run-off process. This said complaint was in two parts, (1) requesting a thorough review of all 412 voided ballots to see if any of these ballots should rightfully be counted and (2) urging the APFA leadership to make institutional changes to the future practices and policies setting the administrative guidelines and safeguards to our union's election process.
On Thursday, April 15, 2004 I received a letter dated April 8, 2004 from Leatha Harding-Berry, Chairperson, APFA National Ballot Committee. I note Ms. Harding-Berry had taken her office of chair on April 1, 2004. Linda Herod-Rivas, twenty-year chair of APFA's NBC, had been removed by the APFA Board of Directors effective April 1, 2004. I further note that Ms. Herod-Rivas had been overseeing this 2004 APFA National Officer Election and should be called upon during any and all review of this complaint.
In the NBC letter dated April 8, 2004 [Exhibit #6], Ms. Harding-Berry reviews the research completed by the members of the NBC in response to my March complaint but offers no relief or ruling to this complaint. Thus, on April 26, 2004 I filed my appeal [Exhibit #7] to this said complaint with the APFA Executive Committee (EC). On Friday, May 21, 2004 I received my response to this said appeal.
In a letter dated May 18, 2004 [Exhibit #8], under the signature of Greg Hildreth, APFA Secretary, I was informed that again no relief or ruling could be made concerning my election complaint due to the inability of the EC to hold a quorum in order to conduct union business during scheduled meetings on May 11, May 12, and May 18, 2004. As you can see from this said letter dated May 18, 2004 "a resolution was brought forward that was intended to address the Committee's consideration of [my] appeal according to Article VI, Section 6.E. and 6.F."
I have been told that this said resolution was brought forth following at least two days of EC research concerning the run-off election rules & results. Further, that EC member Ellis brought forward this said resolution, which was seconded by EC member St. Michel, and that discussion regarding this resolution was held during the EC's meeting on May 11th. During this time there was a full quorum for a decision concerning this said resolution. However, once the question was called by Secretary Hildreth, certain members of the EC left the meeting to disallow a quorum ruling. During two subsequent EC meetings on May 12th and May 18th, no quorum to conduct union business could be established.
After receiving this May 18, 2004 letter from the APFA Secretary I feel even more strongly that a full and thorough investigation is warranted concerning my election complaint. It is obvious that the union, with its governing bodies split between the two competing slates, will not be able to obtain the quorum necessary to take any further action on my complaint. However, it is my understanding that the review by the NBC and subsequent review by the EC have determined that a number of ballots were not counted because it was incorrectly determined that the member casting those ballots were in some way not members in good standing. It is also my understanding that just the number of these uncounted ballots was sufficient to have affected the outcome of the election for the office of the President.
I therefore request that the Department of Labor determine if there were any ballots which were improperly ruled ineligible under APFA's past rules and practice. If so, I further request that the Department order those ballots to be opened and counted and that the union be directed to install as President whichever candidate had the most votes following the inclusion of any ballot that was improperly not counted.
As I close this election complaint notice I urge the DOL to expedite their action on this complaint. The APFA is in a time of great unrest, with a very fragmented membership. We need a prompt resolution of the issue of uncounted but valid ballots and an impartial determination of what a majority of the eligible voting members voted for during this March 2004 run-off election.
The DOL has been on our property before. APFA's history reflects that neutral referees have been needed to guide us in our past affairs. I quote from the 1985 Opinion and Award of Arbitrator Charles J. Morris, . . . "Dictatorial and undemocratic actions are usually justified in the name of saving the populous from some great evil. But democracy - whether in the country as a whole or in a labor organization - is not a fragile thing. Its very strength lies in its tolerance for differences of opinion. And the APFA Constitution is more specific in its language protecting unpopular ideas than either the Bill of Rights in Title I of the LMRDA or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."
These words were written for a different time and a different concern but it was a time of a divided APFA membership. It was also a time in APFA's history that there was a need for a wise neutral voice to help us resolve our internal conflicts. We are again in need of such help. I ask that a DOL investigation shall begin forthwith stemming from my March 23, 2004 election complaint, and that the DOL take prompt steps to insure that all valid ballots be counted and that the will of the majority - whatever that was - be put into immediate effect.
I look forward to a clear ruling toward a resolution to this dispute.
Tommie Hutto-Blake,
AA LGA Flight Attendant
Alaska Airlines F/A's vote in favor of a new contract