Protest Decisions

July 27, 1995

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Mike Martin                                                       

1371 Duncan

Ypsilanti, MI 48198

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098

R.E. Middleton

President

Teamsters, Local 848

9960 Baldwin Place

El Monte, CA XXX-XX-XXXX

C. Sam Theodus

202 James Circle

Avon Lake, OH 44012

Ron Carey

General President, IBT

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20001

Tom Sever

General Secretary-Treasurer, IBT

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20001

John Sullivan, Esq.

Legal Department, IBT

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20001

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

Re: Election Office Case Nos.               P-010-IBT-PNJ

                                             P-017-IBT-PNJ

                                             P-022-IBT-PNJ

                                            P-048-IBT-PNJ

                                             P-077-IBT-PNJ

                                                                                                                  P-088-IBT-SCE

Gentlemen:

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

Related pre-election protests were filed with the Election Officer pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(a) and (b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election, (“Rules”).[1] 

By letters dated March 6 and April 11, 1995, Mike Martin, a member of Local Union 337, Detroit, Mich., filed a protest (P-010-IBT-PNJ) alleging that General President Ron Carey has utilized the IBT-financed international magazine, Teamster, to unfairly and in a slanted fashion favor the candidacy of Mr. Carey and his supporters, while excluding coverage of Mr. Carey’s opponents.  Mr. Martin specifically cites the March 1995 issue and several pages of the April/May issue of the Teamster.  Mr. Martin also protests the misuse of the Teamster Leader which he similarly contends is designed to support Mr. Carey’s candidacy; the use of union resources to promote Mr. Carey’s candidacy by his appearance at a Union-sponsored rally in Louisville, Kentucky, on March 11, 1995, which, Mr. Martin contends, ostensibly supported the Overnite Trucking campaign; Mr. Carey’s tour of a UPS facility in Louisville, Kentucky; and the use of union funds to publicize Mr. Carey’s  appearance on “Trucking Bozo,” a radio talk show.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

By letter dated April 3, 1995, James P. Hoffa filed a protest (P-017-IBT-PNJ) alleging Mr. Carey produced and distributed an Overnite Trucking video and audio tape to members, using union funds, to promote his candidacy for General President; and produced and distributed through direct mail to members  “Cleaning Up the Teamsters Union -- A Three-Year Progress Report” dated February 1995 to influence the membership and to promote his candidacy in violation of the Rules.

By letter dated April 12, 1995, James P. Hoffa filed a protest (P-022-IBT-PNJ) alleging that the April/May 1995 Teamster magazine unfairly and in a slanted way favors the candidacy of Mr. Carey in violation of the Rules.  Mr. Hoffa specifically cites several pages of the International publication.  Mr. Hoffa also alleges that an undated flyer produced by the IBT Organizing Department and circulated at a Local Union 299 freight meeting constitutes campaign literature.

By letter dated May 24, 1995, R.E. Middleton, President of Local Union 848 filed a protest (P-048-IBT-PNJ) alleging that all issues of the IBT magazine since March 1992 until the date of his protest were utilized as a campaign vehicle for the re-election of Mr. Carey; that Mr. Carey established and misused the Union-financed Carhaul Contract Bulletin, Teamster Freight, Teamster UPS Update, Teamster Warehouse News, and Brewery and Soft Drink News since March 1992; that Mr. Carey established and misused for campaign purposes the Teamster Leader; that the three-year progress report “Cleaning Up the Teamsters,” dated February 1995 was published and distributed in violation of the Rules; that Mr. Carey engaged in political campaigning using union resources in Phoenix, Seattle, Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, Columbus, Ohio and Charlotte, North Carolina; and used Union resources to support the campaign activities of IBT staff members on behalf of Mr. Carey, especially Robert Muehlenkamp and William Hamilton.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

By letter dated May 23, 1995, Mr. Hoffa filed another protest (P-077-IBT-PNJ) contending that the June, 1995, issue of Teamster magazine is similarly in violation of the Rules.  Mr. Hoffa specifically cites several pages of the June issue.  In addition, Mr. Hoffa contends Mr. Carey has introduced and used Teamster Warehouse News and the Brewery and Soft Drink News, IBT funded publications, to support his candidacy.

By letter dated June 8, 1995, C. Sam Theodus, President of Local Union 407 filed a protest (P-088-IBT-SCE) over Mr. Carey’s use of union funds to produce and distribute “Cleaning Up our Union, Building Teamster Clout,” which the protester alleges is campaign literature in support of Mr. Carey’s re-election.[2]

The IBT has responded to these protests by stating generally that Mr. Carey is the General President of the IBT, and the courts have recognized that as the chief officer of the union, Mr. Carey will perform his “legitimate and non-election-related duties and in doing so will have cause to communicate his activities to the members who are affected thereby.”  The IBT contends that the protesters have taken every report of such activity and complained it is a campaign tool without drawing a nexus to the upcoming election.  In each article cited, and in the publications as a whole, the IBT contends it responsibly reported to the membership newsworthy events, including those conducted or participated in by the current leadership. Regarding the three-year progress report, “Cleaning up Our Union, Building Teamster Clout,” the IBT asserts that the report was a legitimate activity of a union which intends to keep its membership apprised of actions and activities which affect them, and there is no evidence of an improper motive or nexus to the election process in the production or distribution of the report.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

As to the allegations by Mr. Middleton in P-48-IBT-PNJ of a pattern of campaigning by Mr. Carey and by IBT staff members, the IBT argues that the protester presents no evidence whatsoever concerning what actions were in violation of the Rules or that the actions complained of were “based on impermissible considerations or can demonstrate any nexus to the election process.”

Because these protests raised similar legal and factual claims, they were consolidated by the Election Officer.   Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr. investigated all of these protests, with the exception of P-088-IBT-SCE, which was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens .

I.              Standards for Review of Publications Under the Rules

The Rules provide, in Article VIII, Section 8(a), the following prohibition, "No publication or communication financed, directly or indirectly, by a Union may be used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person . . ."  The Rules continue by setting out various criteria to be used in determining whether a Union-financed publication has violated this general prohibition.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

The Election Officer finds Mr. Carey was a candidate for those issues of Teamster and other protested publications published in 1995, but he was not a candidate for those issues of the International magazine Mr. Middleton protests in 1992, 1993 or 1994.[3] Thus, the Election Officer must determine whether the Union-financed  publication was used to either “support or attack” either candidate.

In her analysis under Article VIII, Section 8(a), the Election Officer is guided by cases applying Section 401(g) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended (“LMRDA”).  Section 401(g) of LMRDA contains similar prohibitions on the use of

union or employer assistance in campaigning and is incorporated into the Rules pursuant to Article XIII.  The LMRDA prohibits union assistance only if the activity supported by such assistance promotes the candidacy of a person in a union election subject to Title IV of the LMRDA.[4]

              To ascertain whether a communication constitutes promotion of a candidate in violation of Section 401(g), the courts have looked to the “tone, content and timing” of the communication.  See, Donovan v. Postal Employees, 566 F. Supp. 529, 533 (D.D.C. 1983); Usery v. Int’l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots, 528 F.2d 946, 949 (2d Cir. 1976).

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

The courts have clarified Section 401(g) with regard to timing.  For example, in Dole v. Fed’n of Postal Police, 744 F. Supp. 413, 420 (E.D.N.Y. 1990), the court drew a distinction between a newsletter distributed over seven months before nominations and thus removed from the “heat of the [ ] election campaign,” and one distributed within two months of the election.  The court also provided direction in evaluating the timing of a

communication:

Considered under the totality of the circumstances, otherwise permissible statements may take on a different hue when viewed against the backdrop of an election campaign.  And while a union-financed publication may cover “factual notices or statements of interest to members,” and “newsworthy activities of an incumbent [or challenger] running for office,” The line between reporting such facts and activities and between promoting or attacking a candidate can be fine.  Thus even “coverage of newsworthy activities of the incumbent” may be so excessive as to render it campaign literature on behalf of the incumbent.

Id., at 418 (citations omitted).

In Camarata v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that a union publication constituted prohibited campaign material, and noted that the material was not published “at a time proximate to the election as to which relief is sought.”

Decisions of the 1991 Election Officer also provide guidance in determining whether a Union-financed publication has violated the prohibition by supporting or attacking a candidate.  See, Morris, P-1013-LU429-PHL (October 29, 1991), in which the Election Officer examined whether "[t]he newsletter, taken as a whole, provides support to [a] particular candidate."  In Durham P-250-IBT, (February 5, 1991), the Election Officer utilized a newsworthiness test to examine whether or not the subject matter of the article "affect[s] a significant number of the IBT membership."

The Election Officer is cognizant that Mr. Carey, as the incumbent General President,

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

remains the institutional leader of the IBT.  As such, he is often an important participant in many matters of interest to the membership and, therefore, is more likely to have his participation in such matters the subject of inclusion in a magazine’s reports to the membership.  As the Court stated in Sheldon v. O’Callaghan, 335 F. Supp.325, 328 (S.D. N.Y. 1971), quoting Yablonski v. UMWA, 305 F. Supp. 868, 871 (D.D.C. 1969):

It is not unusual for the publication to publish pictures of incumbent officers in the performance of their related activities. [Such coverage of an incumbent officer] is not “excessive coverage, column-wise and pictorially, given to defendant . . . in relation to the coverage of other matters” contained in the [ ] magazine.

See, Donovan v. Metro. Dist. Council, 797 F.2d 140 (3rd Cir. 1986), citing Yablonski v. UMWA, 305 F. Supp.868 (D.D.C. 1969).  In conformance with applicable case law, the Election Officer recognizes, in applying  the “tone, content and timing” test to a Union-financed communication, that so long as a published report on the activity of an incumbent “is addressed to the regular functions, policies and activities of such incumbents as officers involved in matters of interest to the membership, and not as candidates for reelection, there is no violation of [the Act]” Id., at 145, citing Camarata, 478 F. Supp. 321, at 330.

II.              Application of the Rules to the Publication Allegations in the Protests             

A.  Teamster Magazine[5]

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

The Teamster (formerly The New Teamster and The International Teamster) is the official magazine of the IBT.   Currently, eight issues per year are published of the magazine.  This Union-financed publication has a circulation of 1.7 million.  It is received by IBT members in the United States, members of the press, subscribers and those who receive complimentary copies.               

Issues of the International Union’s publication during 1992, 1993 and 1994 were published when Mr. Carey was not a candidate.  Moreover, the allegations raised concerning these issues are too remote in time from the 1995-1996 election of International union delegates and officers to be construed as “campaigning” even if he was a candidate during that period. These publications, therefore, are not violative of the Rules.

Nor does the January/February, 1995 issue of The New Teamster, taken as a whole, provide support to Mr. Carey as a candidate for General President.  The issue is 24 pages (including the front and back covers, but excluding the Election Officer Letter, the IRB Report and Court Order).  It includes three pictures of Mr. Carey and mentions Mr. Carey fourteen times.  There is no mention of the nominations or the elections.

In the March, April/May and June, 1995 issues of Teamster, the protesters cite several examples of articles they believe promote the candidacy of Mr. Carey and therefore constitute violations of the Rules.[6]

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

With respect to the March, 1995 issue, the protesters specifically refer to three pictures of Mr. Carey, as well as a three-page interview with the General President entitled  “Cleaning Up the Union, Rebuilding Teamster Clout” and subtitled “An Interview With General President Ron Carey.”  The interview provides Mr. Carey’s views on a variety of issues of general concern to the membership including corruption, negotiating better contracts, the right to strike, retirement, IBT finances, status of the strike fund and Teamster political clout.  The three pictures accompanying the interview each appear on separate pages.  On page 6, Mr. Carey appears in a group photo along with three individuals identified as members from Seattle.  On page 7, Mr. Carey appears in a group photo along with numerous members in New York.  Finally, on page 8, Mr. Carey appears with two retirees in Ohio.  There are no other photographs of  Mr. Carey in the March 1995 issue.   Only six articles in the 24-page publication (including the front and back cover, but excluding the IRB Report and Court Orders) mention Mr. Carey.

The Election Officer finds the March issue, taken as a whole, does not provide support to Mr. Carey as a candidate for General President.  Mr. Carey’s picture appears only three times and only six articles mention Mr. Carey.  The protested interview with Mr. Carey addresses issues of concern to the membership.   Moreover, discussion by a union leader of such issues through the union’s in-house publication is not only permissible; indeed, it is a union leader’s “responsibility” to do so.  Camarata, 478 F. Supp 321, 330.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

The April/May, 1995 issue of Teamster contains 25 pages (including the front and back covers but excluding the Election Officer Report and the IRB Report) and three pictures of Mr. Carey.  The protesters cite several articles and photographs contained in the publication: An article entitled, “Pension Fund Fraud Exposed,” addresses allegations of misuse of four million dollars in IBT pension fund monies and announces an IBT lawsuit against the alleged parties to the fraud. There is a photograph of Mr. Carey accompanying the article.   A photo of Mr. Carey also accompanies an article entitled “Carey Says Central States Pension Changes Don’t Go Far Enough.”  The article concerns changes in the Central States Pension Fund eligibility requirements that affect members.  An article entitled, “No More ‘Family Business’” concerns allegations of hiring hall misuse at Local Union 807.  Another article, entitled, “Investigation: Does the Real Teamsters Caucus Violate Union Constitution?” announced a special fact-finding panel named by Mr. Carey to determine whether the Real Teamsters Caucus is using members’ dues to violate the IBT constitution and federal law.  An article entitled, “United We Stand,” which Mr. Hoffa labels as  a “publicity stunt,” addresses a rally held in conjunction with an organizing effort in Louisville, Kentucky.  A photograph of Mr. Carey, who was a featured speaker at the event accompanies the article. The  “Cinderella Teamsters” is about the shop steward system at Disney World and the new leadership of Local Union 385 which represents the workers.  There is a picture of Mr. Carey speaking with an IBT shop steward at Disney World.

The Election Officer views the protested articles in the April/May 1995 issue of Teamster as addressing subject matters of general concern to the membership and newsworthy, significant events.  For example, allegations of pension fund misuse are certainly of general interest to the membership.  Because Mr. Carey was announcing an IBT lawsuit against alleged parties to the fraud, the photograph bears a reasonable relationship to his involvement with those activities.  Hiring hall misuse, the investigation of the Real Teamster’s Caucus, and pension changes are newsworthy and  legitimate items of interest to the membership.   Finally, it is the view of the Election Officer that the photographs of Mr. Carey in this issue bear a reasonable relationship to his personal involvement with the activities in the accompanying articles.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

Mr. Hoffa also contends the June 1995 issue of Teamster, “when taken in [its] totality,” violates the Rules.  The issue is 32 pages (including the front and back covers but excluding the Election Officer Report, the IRB Report and Court Orders) and contains three photographs of Mr. Carey.  Mr. Hoffa specifically cites the following articles and photographs in the publication:  the page 1 photograph of Mr. Carey accompanying the article “Teamsters Protest Subsidies for Anti-Worker Companies;" the photograph is of Mr. Carey at a rally protesting  government subsidies; the article entitled, “Protecting Pensions” that concerns the use and abuse of pension funds and Mr. Carey’s establishment of temporary trusteeships in Local Unions to curb abuses by employers, corrupt union officials and mob figures; a photograph accompanying the article, “Nonunion Disney Hotel That Hosted 1991 Teamsters Convention Now Has Union Contract,” that depicts Mr. Carey previously announcing a lawsuit against the hotel during the campaign for a contract; and on page 11, a photograph of Mr. Carey testifying before Congress in favor of highway funding..  Finally, Mr. Hoffa contends the introduction to the International Union’s annual financial report in the June issue violates the Rules.  The introduction entitled “1994 Financial Report: Continuing the Clean-Up of Abuse of the Past,” pictures a broom and reviews “dramatic reforms by General President Ron Carey and the General Executive Board to correct abuses and mismanagement by the past top union leadership.”

The June issue of Teamster does not violate the Rules.  The  publication’s  report on a rally protesting government subsidies of anti-worker companies, at which Mr. Carey was a speaker, does not constitute campaigning.  Union leaders are entitled to have their activities reported on in publications so long as the article or picture bears a reasonable relationship to the officer’s level of participation in the activity.  See, Durham, P-250-IBT, (February 5, 1991).  Mr. Carey’s activities concerning union pension funds, are newsworthy.  Mr. Carey is entitled to have his activities reported on in the Teamster so long as the article bears a reasonable relationship to his involvement.  Camarata, 478 F. Supp 321, 330.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

The page 7 and page 11 pictures of Mr. Carey do not violate the Rules for the same reasons stated in the paragraph above.  Nor does the page 18-19 article regarding  the financial status of the IBT.  While the introduction to the financial report highlights the accomplishments of Mr. Carey and his administration, the article does not mention Mr. Carey’s candidacy or the International officer or delegate elections.  The financial status of the union is clearly a subject matter of general interest to IBT members, including how officers have responded to problems now being faced by the union.  That the article reports on Mr. Carey’s and the General Executive Board’s responses to the financial problems being faced by the Union does not render it campaign literature.

B. The Teamster Leader[7]

The Teamster Leader, a Union-financed newsletter, was first published on July 7, 1992.  It was published eight times in 1994 and two times thus far in 1995.  With a circulation of 46,500, The Teamster Leader is received by Local Union officials, stewards, retiree clubs and interested members. 

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

Mr. Martin contends that the January 20, 1995, issues of The Teamster Leader is larger in page length than other issues of the newsletter and contains a prominent article attacking the Central States Pension Fund, which “has long been part of [Carey’s] campaign for reelection.” The January 20 newsletter is longer than those previously published.   The article on the pension fund, “Carey Calls For Pension Fund Trustees Who Are Accountable to Members,” is no more prominent than the 18 other articles that appear in the publication.  It appears on page six of the eight-page newsletter.  Mr. Middleton contends that the publication, taken as a whole, is in violation of the Rules.

The Election Officer finds that neither the publication as a whole, the above-stated article or picture, or the fact that the publication’s size has been increased violate the Rules.  First, only one single picture of  Mr. Carey appears in the entire January 20, 1995, newsletter.  Second, the article in question, like the article in the April/May issue of the Teamster, concerns a matter of interest to the members and does not mention the International officer or delegate elections.  See, Morris, P-1013-LU429-PHL (October 29, 1991).

Finally, a mere increase in a publication’s size in and of itself will not transform otherwise permissible communications into a violation of the Rules. 

C.  Teamster Warehouse News and the Brewery and Soft Drink News[8]

Teamster Warehouse News and the Brewery and Soft Drink News are two new IBT-produced and financed publications.  Teamster Warehouse News published a single issue in April 1995.  It is received by IBT members employed in warehouses, distribution centers, food processing plants and canneries.  Its stated purpose is to facilitate communication between members employed in these industries on collective bargaining issues and strategies.  The Brewery and Soft Drink News published a single issue on March 17, 1995.  It is received by members employed in the brewery and soft drink industries.  The publication’s stated purpose is to facilitate communication between local unions on negotiating strategies that have been effectively utilized by members and leaders.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

                      No specific articles which Mr. Hoffa or Mr. Middleton contends violate the Rules are cited.  The Brewery and Soft Drink News is four pages in length.  It contains 13 articles of varying lengths and subjects, for example, bargaining with Pepsi-Cola; new alcohol testing rules implemented; RC Cola workers win new contract; and the designation of International staff  to aid local union grievance handling.

The April 1995 issue of the Teamsters Warehouse News covers subject matter similar to that appearing in the Brewery and Soft Drink News.  It contains articles on contract victories in the industry; one-on-one network communicating; the IBT’s hiring of an industrial engineer; and new alcohol testing rules.

Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Middleton charge that, because neither Teamster Warehouse News nor the Brewery and Soft Drink News existed prior to 1991 election, the newsletters are violative of the Rules.  Moreover, Hoffa charges that the publications are being used to “distribute his lies and disinformation regarding the Teamsters Union.”  Neither protester cites specific examples of Rules violations.

The Election Officer finds that none of the articles, nor the newsletters taken as a whole, violate the Rules.  The mere creation of a new publication, without any showing that the publication is being used in violation of Article VIII, Section 8 is not a violation of the Rules.

D.  The Carhaul Contract Bulletin, Teamster Freight, and the Teamster UPS Update[9]

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

Like the Teamster Warehouse News and the Brewery and Soft Drink Update, the Carhaul Contract Bulletin, Teamster Freight, and the Teamster UPS Update target the members and Local Union officials in those particular industries.  The Carhaul Contract Bulletin began publication three years ago when the National Master Agreement was being negotiated.  Similarly, the UPS and freight bulletins were first published at the start of the negotiation of their respective national agreements.    The stated purpose of these bulletins is to assist in coordinating national efforts in these industries and to report on issues of concern.

Mr. Middleton does not cite specific articles he contends violate the Rules in these publications.  A review of these publications shows they generally report on matters of concern to the industry and to the membership in general.

Mr. Middleton contends these publications, without citing any specific examples, were established and misused for campaign purposes.  A review of the publications does not reveal utilization of these publications for campaign purposes in violation of the Rules.             

E.              Cleaning Up the Teamsters Union: A Three-Year Progress Report[10]

In February, 1995, Mr. Carey issued a three-year progress report with 24 pages of text and eight pages of appendices which are a listing of International Union trusteeships as of April 1995.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

The report begins with an introduction by Mr. Carey which addresses the “enormous” changes he and his General Executive Board have made since he took office in February 1992.  He writes, for example, “We are actively attacking corruption, expanding membership involvement, fighting for better contracts and pensions, and putting the union’s own house in order.”  He details the accomplishments of his administration and the reforms he and the International Union would hope to implement in the “coming year.”  From pages 1-24, Mr. Carey then details his efforts in all of the areas touched upon in the introduction: fighting  corruption in Local Unions, correcting Local Union election improprieties, reversing past management, controlling costs, more muscle for members, less fat for officials, reforming members’ grievance panels, improving health and safety, maintaining high standards in industries, using new approaches to win better contracts, organizing through member involvement, and grassroots political action.   All of the subjects included in the report had been previously reported in the the International Union publications and videotapes.  The report was sent to individual union members.

Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Middleton and Mr. Theodus all contend the publication and distribution of this report is in violation of the Rules.  Mr. Hoffa argues that this document is in the class of misused publications prohibited in Yablonski, 305 F. Supp. 868, due to the excessive use of Mr. Carey’s name, while “[f]ew other union members are mentioned, other than in a disparaging manner.”  Overall, Mr. Hoffa contends, that the publication is an obvious misuse of International funds to promote Mr. Carey’s candidacy.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

In a companion case concerning the July/August Teamster magazine issued today in P-l05-IBT-PNJ and P-106-IBT-PNJ, the Election Officer ruled that an article which praised Mr. Carey’s accomplishments in the context of the importance of running for delegate was in violation of the Rules.  In reaching her decision, the Election Officer noted that the delegate elections were underway and thus the linking of Mr. Carey’s accomplishments with the urging of members to be convention delegates made the article more akin to campaign material than a news report or an editorial.  The three-year progress report, however, while clearly applauding Mr. Carey’s accomplishments, does not speak to the upcoming International Officer or delegate elections.  While such a document may well be treated as campaign material if it had been issued to members later in the campaign, its issuance in February, 1995, is a statement of interest to the members.  See, Postal Police, 744 F. Supp. 413, 418 (“Considered under the totality of the circumstances, otherwise permissible statements may take on a different hue when viewed against the backdrop of an election campaign.”).[11]  Under these circumstances,  Mr. Carey had the right to report on the accomplishments of his administration a year and a half before the International officer election.

III.  Overnite Trucking Campaign

In P-010-IBT-PNJ, Mr. Martin argues that Mr. Carey violated the Rules when the Union expended IBT resources on a videotape documenting a rally in Louisville, Kentucky.   Mr. Martin characterizes the rally and the video as “political.”  The IBT characterizes the videotape, instead, as an organizing tool and the rally as a legitimate union activity.

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

The investigation included a review of the videotape as well as an audio tape of the events occurring at the event. The Election Officer’s investigation reveals that the event was non-partisan in nature. The videotape featured a rally of rank and file members and nonunion workers seeking union representation.  Mr. Carey speaks to the rally about the accomplishments of the Union (for example, eradication of corruption) and the organizing efforts and initiatives of the International Union.  There is a banner in the background that reads:  “Local Union 89 Welcomes President Carey.”   It is not unusual for a Local Union to welcome the leader of the union, and the banner does not transform the organizing rally a campaign event.

Therefore, Mr. Martin’s protest in regards to the Overnite Trucking rally is DENIED.

IV.              Trucking Bozo Radio Show

Mr. Martin alleges in P-010-IBT-PNJ that IBT resources were utilized to notify members of Mr. Carey’s appearance on the Bozo Radio Show, a call-in radio program, which is listened to  by truckers across the country.  Mr. Martin alleges that Mr. Carey’s appearance was “political” in nature and, therefore, the expenditure of IBT resources to publicize his appearance violated the election Rules.

The radio show was broadcast to an audience broader than the membership and was in a call-in question and answer format.  Mr. Carey answered questions on a variety of issues but did not address the upcoming International officer or delegate elections.  The Election Officer finds that, while IBT resources were expended to publicize Mr. Carey’s appearance on the radio program, the event was non-partisan in nature and related to Mr. Carey’s role as spokesman in his capacity as General President of the IBT.

Therefore, Martin’s protest in regards to the Bozo Radio Show is DENIED.

V.              UPS Facility Tour

Mr. Martin alleges in P-10-IBT-PNJ that because Mr. Carey toured a UPS facility in Louisville, Kentucky, other candidates for IBT office should be granted equal access to such facilities.  There is no contention that Mr. Carey engaged in campaign activity while visiting the UPS facility.  As General President, it is reasonable that Mr. Carey would tour facilities in which the Union represents the workers.  The Election Officer finds the tour was not in violation of the Rules, and therefore, this portion of Mr. Martin’s protest is DENIED..

Mike Martin, et al.

July 27, 1995

Page 1

VI.              Organizing Flyer

Mr. Hoffa in P-022-IBT-PNJ alleges that a flyer produced by the IBT’s organizing department entitled, “We’ve Got to Work Together,” is political campaign material printed and distributed by Mr. Carey using Union resources.

The Election Officer’s investigation examined both the content and the circumstances surrounding its distribution of the material throughout the IBT.  In fact, the Election Officer