IN RE: STEVE JONES,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 222
Issued: March 8, 2001
OEA Case No. PR021413SO
Local 41 member Steve Jones filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). Jones alleges that Local 41 president Phil Young violated the Rules by using his title in an endorsement of a slate running in Local 41's delegate election.
Election Administrator representative Dolores Hall investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
The facts are not in dispute. Young, who is not running in the Local 41 delegate election, sent to Local 41 members two pieces of literature endorsing the Phil Young-Jim Hoffa Members First slate (the "Young-Hoffa slate"). One piece is titled, "A MESSAGE FROM YOUR PRESIDENT." Underneath Young's signature is his name, followed by "President of Local 41." The second piece has the headings "To: The Membership of Local 41" and "From: Phil Young, President of Local 41." Both documents urge members to vote for the Young-Hoffa slate and contain the following disclaimer: "Paid for by the Phil Young-Jim Hoffa Members First Slate. No union funds or resources were used in the production of this document and the labor was donated."
Analysis
Article VII, Section 11(b) of the Rules makes clear that an endorsement may be made by a union officer, but only in the officer's "individual capacity."[1] We must determine whether Young violated the Rules by endorsing a slate in his capacity as not only a Local 41 member but also as an officer.
The relevant precedent reveals a distinction between an endorsement by a local union institution, which is prohibited, and an endorsement by individual members who comprise a local union institution, which is permitted. In Hoffa, P954 (September 23, 1996), the Election Officer found a violation when a local union executive board endorsed candidates for international office. See also Custer, P1098 (November 18, 1991) (finding a violation when an endorsement "speaks in terms of the Executive Board" and fails to indicate that it is being made by individual members of the local.)
On the other hand, the Election Officer in Moriarty, P1071 (November 15, 1991), found no violation when a letter contained endorsements from every member of the local union executive board, each board member's name and title, and a statement that "the members" of the board unanimously endorsed a certain slate. The Election Officer explained, "[T]he Rules do not prohibit the members of an Executive Board from identifying themselves as such when [endorsing] candidates; as long as the endorsement is not made as an official endorsement of the Executive Board as an entity, but as individual endorsements by the members of the Executive Board, the Rules are not violated." In Custer, the Election Officer reiterated the distinction: "While members of the Local Union and Local Union officers have the right as individuals to express their preferences for particular candidates, the Local Union and the Local Union Executive Board as institutions cannot . . . endorse candidates."
We do not find a violation of the Rules. Young has the same rights to campaign as any other member. Like the respondents in Moriarty, we find that Young has supported a slate solely in his individual capacity. We do not find, nor has it been alleged, that Young represented in his mailings that his views were those of Local 41 or of any institutional entity related to Local 41.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the protest. We, however, repeat our suggestion in the September 27, 2000, Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure, Section II(B)(6): "To avoid any confusion, board members or local union officers seeking to endorse a candidate in their capacity as a member of the IBT can indicate on any publication of such an endorsement that their office or position is listed 'for identification purposes only.' "
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Administrator in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
Suite 1000
885 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Fax: 212-751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15th Street NW, Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 20005 (facsimile: 202-454-1501), all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Election Administrator
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2001 EAD 222
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR:
Patrick Szymanski
IBT General Counsel
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
J. Douglas Korney
Korney & Heldt
30700 Telegraph Road
Suite 1551
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Barbara Harvey
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach
110 Mayfair
Eugene, OR 97404
Phil Young
IBT Local 41
4501 Van Brunt Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64130
Steve Jones
11615 Clare Road
Olathe, KS 66061
Dolores C. Hall
1000 Belmont Pl.
Metairie, LA 70001
[1] A "campaign contribution" includes "[a]n endorsement or counter-endorsement by an individual, group of individuals, or entity." Rules, Definitions, 5(f).