Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR for the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: FRED ZUCKERMAN                    )           Protest Decision 2011 ESD 336
                     and SANDY POPE,                   )           Issued: September 30, 2011
                                                                        )           OES Case Nos. P-332-092711-FW
             Protestor.                                          )                                 & P-333-092811-FW
____________________________________)

Fred Zuckerman, member of Local Union 89 and nominated candidate for IBT Central region vice president, 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 Teamsters Joint Council 7 used its union publication to support Hoffa-Hall 2011 in violation of the Rules by publishing a convention photo of Hoffa slate supporters. 

Sandy Pope, member of Local Union 805 and nominated candidate for IBT General President, filed a separate pre-election protest alleging that the President’s Report, published in the Joint Council 7 publication, violated the Rules because it repeated Hoffa campaign rhetoric.

            These protests were consolidated for investigation and decision.  Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated them.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            Joint Council 7 is comprised of 22 local unions in northern California and northern Nevada.  The joint council periodically publishes the Joint Council 7 Teamster newsletter and distributes it to the full joint council membership.  The August/September 2011 issue consisted of 8 pages.  Page 1 contained the masthead and an article about the IBT convention, with accompanying photos.  The President’s Report, by Rome Aloise, appeared on page 2.  Quotes from delegates concerning their convention experiences were printed on pages 2 and 3.  Additional articles about the convention appeared on page 3 (a convention report on the war on workers) and page 4 (an article about Local Union 439’s truck in the convention parade).  The balance of the newsletter consisted of local union reports unrelated to the convention.

On July 7, 2011, we issued our Publication Review Advisory, which requires that “Union-financed publications distributed between August and November 2011 must be submitted to the Office of the Election Supervisor for review before publication.”  The Joint Council 7 Teamster was submitted for pre-publication review, as the Advisory required, and was approved on July 21, 2011, and was mailed to the membership shortly thereafter, in early August 2011.  Notwithstanding this approval by OES, the protests assert that particular aspects of the newsletter violated the Rules’ prohibition on use of union publication to support a candidate.  

The Zuckerman protest asserted that the newsletter impermissibly supported the Hoffa campaign by publishing a color photo of Joint Council 7 convention delegates wearing red Hoffa-Hall 2011 vests.  The photo was published on page 1 of the newsletter and bore this caption: “The Joint Council 7 delegation, 105 strong, celebrates 100^th year recognition.”  The article printed immediately below the photo was a brief convention summary, touching on the opening ceremony, a report on organizing, the fact that resolutions were discussed and adopted, the appearance by Vice President Joe Biden, the war on workers, and a list of candidates nominated for at large and West region office. 

In Gegare & Bennett, 2011 ESD 320 (September 8, 2011), we considered a protest concerning a convention photo of delegates wearing Hoffa-Hall 2011 vests that appeared in Teamster Industrial Trade News, an IBT newsletter.  We wrote:

Because of its limited size, the newsletter published only one photo depicting a crowd or group shot taken at the convention.  In this black and white photo, both Hoffa-Hall and Gegare vests can be seen, although the majority of delegates wearing vests are supporters of Hoffa-Hall.  This photo constitutes a factual rendition of the political demographic of the convention and therefore does not violate the Rules. 

The photo that appears in the Joint Council 7 Teamster, by contrast, is printed in color, and no Gegare vests are apparent.  While it is obvious that nearly all of the persons in the shot are wearing red vests, the political significance of the vests is lost to the reader because the shot is taken at such a distance that “Hoffa-Hall” cannot be read on any of the vests.  No red vests appear elsewhere in the newsletter, and nothing identifies the wearers of the vests as Hoffa-Hall supporters.  We find further that the caption reports the fact that Joint Council 7 was honored for celebrating its 100^th anniversary, a fact that is newsworthy to members.  For these reasons, we conclude that the publication of the photo did not constitute union support for Hoffa-Hall 2011 and therefore DENY the Zuckerman protest.

The Pope protest alleged that text of Rome Aloise’s President’s Report consisted of Hoffa-Hall 2011 campaign rhetoric and therefore violated the Rules.  Aloise is a nominated candidate for IBT vice president at large.  The first two paragraphs of the report summarized the purpose of the convention as the gathering to amend the IBT constitution, discuss and adopt resolutions, and nominate candidates for International office.  The paragraphs noted the spirit of the convention as well as Vice President Biden’s call to restore the American dream.  The third paragraph expressed Aloise’s lament that the convention lacked “what was most important,” which he said was “debate over the issues.”  The Pope protest challenged the next two paragraphs of the report, which read:

We have candidates running against each other for every office on the General Executive Board. The time to debate issues is in front of the delegates – their peers – but no debate was had on the Convention floor.  Many of our Joint Council Delegates were disappointed that they did not get to hear why people were running and what they were going to do that was different or better than those they are running against.

Hopefully, in the next few months, we will have an exchange of positions and ideas to justify the $14 million dollar cost of holding the election.

The protest argued that the absence of debate and the use of “$14 million dollar” phrase constituted Hoffa campaign rhetoric that was communicated to the membership using union resources in the form of a union officer’s report.  For proof of the rhetorical parallel, the protest pointed to James P. Hoffa’s nomination acceptance speech, given the last day of the convention, where he spoke of “the lasting memories of this great convention.”  He then said the following:

But, you know, there’s something else you didn’t see here.  There’s something else you didn’t see.  You saw all the planning, you saw our leaders talking about mapping out the future.

We have opponents.  The opponents weren’t at the mikes.  The opponents didn’t have resolutions.  The opponents didn’t have amendments.  They don’t have a plan.  All they do is hate and criticize, and that’s not our union.  We’re going to take charge and defeat them and win this election.

            In evaluating this argument, we note significant differences between the Hoffa acceptance speech and the Aloise report.  In the former, Hoffa argued that his opponents did not debate, had no plan for the union, and their electoral strategy consisted only of criticism.  In the latter, Aloise did not cast the issue as incumbents versus challengers and did not state that some candidates had ideas while others did not.  Instead, he wrote that the lack of debate at the convention left many delegates unable to learn “why people are running” and what action candidates would take if elected “that was different or better than those they are running against.”  His neutral use of language on its face was directed at all candidates – including himself and the members of his slate – for not debating a governing vision at the convention that the delegates could evaluate. 

            Aloise’s use of the “$14 million dollar” figure is repeated from Hoffa campaign literature.  While the figure exceeds the budgeted cost of the delegates and International officers election significantly, we are unable to conclude that this misstatement alone converted the neutral language of his report to a partisan tract.

            Accordingly, we DENY the Pope 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 336

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):