Protest Decisions

Fred Zuckerman, candidate for International office, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules").   The protest alleged that Hoffa-Hall 2011 obtained improper union and/or employer contributions to its campaign, in violation of the Rules.

Election Supervisor representative Dolores Hall investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact

To coincide with UPS national grievance panel meetings taking place over several days in early March 2011 at the Westin Beach Resort & Spa in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Hoffa-Hall 2011 scheduled a fund-raising event for a ballroom at that hotel for the evening of March 10, 2011.   Publicity for the event included a pre-recorded telephone message from James Hoffa to all guest rooms occupied by IBT members attending the meetings.   The message invited the room occupants to attend the event and specified when and where it would take place.   Guest room phones at the hotel include a voicemail feature, and the message was left for room occupants to discover there.

Protestor Zuckerman claimed that Hoffa-Hall 2011 improperly benefited from a union contribution, an employer contribution, or both.   He claimed that the campaign could not permissibly solicit campaign funds in individual guest rooms, which it did by leaving voice-messages there, as the rooms were paid for with union funds.   He further claimed that either the IBT or the Westin supplied the campaign with room numbers for the IBT guests and that those numbers, as a thing of value, could not be disclosed for use by the campaign absent advance written notice to all candidates of the availability of them for campaign use.   Finally, Zuckerman claimed that if the Westin was not compensated for the use of its voicemail service, it made an improper employer contribution to the campaign.

Investigation showed that on August 10, 2010, the IBT entered into a contract with the Westin to hold the UPS grievance meetings there on March 6 through 11, 2011.   The contract specified that the IBT would pay for the meeting rooms, and meeting attendees would pay for their guest rooms from a block of rooms reserved for them at rates the IBT negotiated.  

On December 14, 2010, Ken Hall, Director of the Package Division, sent a memorandum to all UPS and UPS Freight local unions outlining dates and locations for UPS and UPS Freight grievance meetings.   That list included the March 2011 meetings at the Westin.   Representatives from UPS local unions attend the grievance meetings at each local union's expense.    

On January 31, 2011, a follow-up reminder was sent to all UPS Freight local unions regarding the grievance meetings, listing dates and location and urging attendees to make their reservations promptly.

On February 2, Joint Council 75 amended the original contract to add 40 more rooms for the night of March 10 for those attending the joint council meeting on March 11.

On March 1, Todd Thompson, a campaign manager for Hoffa-Hall 2011, contacted the Westin about renting a reception room to hold a fundraiser on March 10.   During the discussions of these arrangements, which extended into the next day, Thompson asked whether the Westin had capability to transmit a pre-recorded voice-message to the rooms of IBT guests of the hotel.   On March 2, Lisa Reich, Westin's conference and catering manager, forwarded to Thompson via email a contract for the Hoffa-Hall 2011 rental, stating in the email:   "With regard to the audio pre-recorded message, we can indeed do this.   Please provide in CD form.   There is no cost to do this."

Thompson, on behalf of Hoffa-Hall 2011, entered into the contract for rental of the Las Olas Ballroom V, including bartenders, cashiers, a sound system, and drinks for a reception to be held from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. on March 10.   The contract specified the room rental at $200; 2 bartenders and 2 cashiers at $100 per person; audio equipment at $193.98; premium wine, liquor and imported beer at $8 to $8.50 per serving, domestic beer at $6.50, and water, soft drinks and juice at $5.  

Thompson told our investigator that he made a recording of James Hoffa issuing an invitation to attend the fundraiser in the Las Olas Ballroom V.   He copied the recording to a CD and gave it to the hotel desk clerk with the request that it be sent through the hotel messaging system to the entire IBT block of rooms.   The hotel did so.

The hotel conference manager told our investigator that such voice-messaging to guest rooms is provided without charge to persons doing business with the hotel.

This protest followed.

Analysis

Article VII, Section 12(c) prohibits use of union facilities to campaign, unless the union is reimbursed at fair market value and advance written notice is given to all candidates of the availability of such facilities for campaign use.   Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) and (3) prohibits, respectively, employers and union from contributing "anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate."

The Rules do not prohibit purchase of services and rental of facilities at fair market value from an employer, nor does the protestor suggest otherwise.   As such, Hoffa-Hall 2011 did not violate the Rules by renting the reception room and hiring staff to serve drinks.   There is no suggestion, or evidence, that the campaign received a below-market   rate for the rental.

Similarly, the Rules do not prohibit a candidate from hosting a campaign event at a facility at which the IBT is also conducting union business, provided the candidate pays the expenses associated with the campaign event.   Indeed, other decisions from this election cycle document occasions where campaigns have held receptions at hotels that were hosting IBT events, and no objection has been made to that practice.   See, e.g., Gegare (After Remand), 2011 ESD 73 (January 20, 2011), aff'd in relevant part, 10 EAM 3 (February 16, 2011) (Hoffa slate meeting and Hoffa campaign kick-off held at hotel hosting IBT Unity conference); Zuckerman et al, 2010 ESD 5 (June 28, 2010) (fundraiser for Hall and Wood held at same hotel that hosted grievance meetings); Zuckerman, 2010 ESD 62 (December 28, 2010), aff'd, 11 EAM 10 (January 28, 2011) (Gegare "meet and greet" conducted at same hotel where IBT grievance meetings were held).  

As a candidate does not violate the Rules by conducting a campaign event at a hotel hosting official IBT business, likewise no violation occurs where the campaign hires hotel services to advertise its event.   See Leedham Slate, 2006 ESD 311 (June 28, 2006) (protest withdrawn when investigation showed that Hoffa campaign hired hotel bellhop service to distribute invitations to campaign event under guest room doors of convention delegates).  

Here, we find that the dissemination of voice-messages to the guest room phones of IBT members attending the UPS grievance meetings was performed under circumstances similar to those in Leedham Slate.   Thompson's request for the service and the hotel's performance of it was part of the business Thompson conducted with the hotel on behalf of Hoffa-Hall 2011.   Unlike in Leedham Slate, the Westin did not assess Thompson an additional charge for the voice-messaging.   However, we find that the Westin acted in a commercially reasonable manner by including the voice-messaging at no additional charge with the contract Hoffa-Hall 2011 executed for the reception room and services and did not discriminate in favor of the campaign by providing a service at less than fair market value.   For these reasons, we find no impermissible employer contribution to the campaign from the hotel.

We also find that neither the hotel nor the IBT gave the campaign a list of guest room phone numbers to which the voice-messages could be directed.   Instead, the hotel performed the service using its own equipment and records.

Finally, we reject the protestor's contention that a campaign voice-message left on a guest room phone violates the prohibition on use of union resources to campaign, even though the guest room charge is paid with local union funds.   The voicemail targeted a campaign communication to reach only Teamsters in a place of public accommodation.   The service was available to anyone doing business with the hotel and did not constitute use of a union asset.  

For these 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 Supervisor 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
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax: (212) 751-4864

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L, Washington, D.C. 20006, all within the time prescribed above.   A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

                                                                        Richard W. Mark
                                                                        Election Supervisor

cc:        Kenneth Conboy
            2011 ESD 224

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):

Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
braymond@teamster.org