IN RE: Bob Hasegawa,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 375
Issued: May 22, 2001
OEA Case No. PR043011WE
Bob Hasegawa, candidate for Western Region Vice President, 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"). He alleges that Local 174 president Scott Sullivan caused the publication of an article in the Washington Teamster containing statements that were disingenuous and politically motivated.
Election Administrator representative Lisa Sonia Taylor investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact
Joint Council 28 publishes the Washington Teamster, a quarterly newspaper. That publication has been the subject of earlier protests alleging improper political content. See Pope, 2001 EAD 4 (August 1, 2000), aff'd, 00 EAM 3 (August 29, 2000) and Brannan, 2001 EAD 359 (May 10, 2001). As a member of Joint Council 28, Local 174 submitted an article for publication in the February-April edition of the newspaper. The article as published in the magazine contained material objected to by Hasegawa, which was not removed by the Joint Council, even though it has in the past edited articles submitted by local unions because of their political content. See Brannan, supra.
The article that is the subject of this protest was titled "We Want To Hear All The Candidates" and contained the following text:
The leadership of Local 174 is neutral in regards to International candidates and issues. The Executive Board will endorse no candidates for the aforementioned elective offices.
…
On behalf of the members of Local 174, Scott Sullivan and the Executive Board have invited the two IBT President candidates, challenger Tom Leedham and incumbent President James Hoffa, to come to Seattle and speak before our membership. They have been given the choice of agreeing to a debate, or of coming separately. Either way, our members will get the chance to consider what the two men are like up close and personal, and to get a good handle on what kind of leaders they would be during the five year term they are running for - January, 2002 through December, 2007.
Sullivan spoke with Tom Leedham after a meeting at Joint Council 37 in Portland, Oregon where Leedham agreed to the debate. Other than this, Sullivan maintains that no tangible plans were made for the debate. He stated that General President Hoffa has not responded to the debate proposal. Sullivan asserts that the article is accurate. Our records show that Leedham responded affirmatively to the debate offer by letter to Sullivan dated March 13, 2001.[1]
Hasegawa claims that given Leedham's acceptance before the publication of the article, its statements are "disingenuous and were printed for political reasons to advance the Hoffa campaign, and to build credibility for the deceptive 'neutrality' strategy of pro-Hoffa Delegates Scott Sullivan and Rick Hicks." He goes on to argue that, "[f]eigned neutrality is the Hoffa campaign strategy in pro-Reform/anti-Hoffa Local 174" and "[t]o state they are 'neutral' in the election is actually a political statement in itself."[2]
Analysis
Article VII, Section 8 of the Rules prohibits the use of union financed publications to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person. To assess the propriety of a union publication under the Rules we must look to its tone, timing and content. Pope, 2000 EAD 4 (August 1, 2000), aff'd, 00 EAM 3 (August 29, 2000).
The tone of the above-quoted article is neutral. Its timing is not suspicious. And the article's failure to mention either that Leedham has agreed to debate or that Hoffa has not does not standing alone convert content that otherwise appears to be neutral reporting about the local's debate invitation into campaigning against Leedham or in favor of Hoffa. That is simply too thin a reed on which to find a violation based solely on the content prong of the union publication test. Compare Higdon, 2001 EAD 346 (May 4, 2001).
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the protest.
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, N.W., 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005 (fax: 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 375
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY UPS NEXT DAY AIR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
|
Patrick J. Szymanski Bradley T. Raymond J. Douglas Korney Barbara Harvey Tom Leedham |
Betty Grdina Bob Hasegawa IBT Local 174 Scott Sullivan Al Hobart Christine Mrak |
[1] The Sullivan debate invitation was the subject of our decision in Hasegawa, 2001 EAD 235 (March 13, 2001).
[2] Hasegawa points to our decision in Hasegawa, supra, where we found a Rules violation by Sullivan based upon the partisan language used in his debate invitation, which was published through use of union resources. In so ruling, however, we found improper only the invitation's castigation of the prior Hasegawa administration at Local 174. We found that the debate invitation by the local union was appropriate and proper under the Rules.