IN RE: LEEDHAM SLATE,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 394
Issued: June 23, 2001
OEA Case No. PR060911AT
(See also Election Appeals Master decision 01 EAM 84)
The Tom Leedham Rank & File Power slate ("Leedham slate") 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"). It alleges the April-May issue of Voice of Teamsters Local 391 ("Voice"), a union-financed publication, improperly campaigned for the Hoffa Unity slate.
Election Administrator representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated the protest
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Local 391 publishes the Voice four to five times annually. The April-May issue, mailed to members April 20, included a front-page, eight sentence, lead article entitled, "Cipriani-Hoffa Team 391 Blanks Opponent; Sweeps Delegate Vote 76% - 24%." Under a subheading "Team 391 Seeks Union Strength," the article's third through seventh sentences read:
Team 391 won by pledging to help keep the national union on a path to fiscal health.
As a running-mate of Jim Hoffa's on the union's 1998 officer election, Jack Cipriani has worked to build union power by ending the waste of the members' dues.
The International union was nearly bankrupt when Cipriani and the Hoffa administration took office. Previous leaders cut strike benefits for Teamster members to stay afloat. Since that time, the new administration has saved money by cutting a bloated payroll, slashing expenses and eliminating perks for leaders and staff.
The protest contends this passage "is not purely factual, and the publication has an intemperate tone and includes lavish praise of Hoffa-Cipriani."
In response, the local argues the protest is untimely filed and lacks substantive merit. According to the local, the article "did no more than report on the outcome of the delegate election," "a newsworthy event that the members are entitled to know about." Moreover, the sentences the protest cites "are statements of fact concerning the platform of the victorious slate."
Investigation of the timeliness issue showed the Voice was faxed anonymously to the Leedham slate on June 8; the protest was filed the next day. The filing, however, was made some 50 days after the Voice was published. Article XIII, Section 2(b) requires protests to "be filed within two (2) days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived." The local asserts the Leedham slate should reasonably have known of the Voice's publication well before the date it did. The local presents no evidence to support this assertion. Moreover, no Leedham slate member is on the Local 391 mailing list; accordingly, the circuitous path by which the Voice traveled to the Leedham slate reasonably explains the elapsed time between publication of the newspaper and filing of the protest. Accordingly, we hold this protest timely filed. In reaching this holding, we also note that time limits for filing protests have oft been said to be prudential, not jurisdictional. See, e.g., Aksamit, 2001 EAD 213 (March 5, 2001), aff'd, 01 EAM 47 (March 16, 2001). Given the Rules' emphasis on prohibiting use of union resources - and in particular union-financed publications - for campaign purposes, we decide this matter on its merits.
We GRANT the protest. The article "'crossed the line' between printing a legitimate news article and campaigning on behalf of a candidate," Martin, 95 EAM 18 (October 2, 1995), because, as we said in Dethrow, 2001 EAD 381 (June 4, 2001), "[t]he tone and content of the [article] consists of adulation for the Hoffa administration and, implicitly, criticism of the preceding Carey administration, with which the Hoffa campaign has sought to link Leedham." The article's use of the terms "waste," "bankrupt," "bloated," "slashing," and "perks" underscores our holding that, taken as a whole, the article is partisan in its tone and content. Published a bare two months before the International convention, the article's timing also supports our conclusion that it violates the Rules.
Remedy
When the Rules have been violated, the Election Administrator "may take whatever remedial action is appropriate." Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Administrator considers the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interference with the election process.
We order Local 391 to publish in the next issue of the Voice an article submitted to it by the Leedham slate. The article shall be of substantially equivalent length to the one found to have violated the Rules here, and it shall be placed in the same location on the front page of the newspaper. The Election Administrator will resolve any dispute concerning compliance with this order.
An order of the Election Administrator, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. Lopez, 96 EAM 73.
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 (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 394
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
IBT Local 391
Jack Cipriani
P.O. Box 34505
Greensboro, NC 27425
Susan Boyle
Baptiste & Wilder, PC
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Jeffrey Ellison
65 Cadillac Square, Suite 3727
Detroit, MI 48226