August 16, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Michael A. Sauwoir, Jim Buck
August 16, 1995
Page 1
Michael A. Sauwoir
5934 Blue Hills Road
Kansas City, MO 64110
Jim Buck
Teamsters Local Union 41
2811 Lee Oaks Court #303
Falls Church, VA 22046
Philip E. Young
Teamsters Local Union 41
Teamsters Joint Council 56
4501 Van Brunt Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64130
Dennis Speak
Teamsters Local Union 41
4501 Van Brunt Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64130
Michael A. Sauwoir, Jim Buck
August 16, 1995
Page 1
RE: Election Office Case Nos. P-041-LU41-EOH;
P-057-LU41-EOH
Gentlemen:
Related pre-election protests, P-041-LU41-EOH and P-057-LU41-EOH, have been filed pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Michael Sauwoir and Jim Buck, respectively, both members of Local Union 41 in Kansas City, Missouri.[1] The Election Officer consolidated these protests for decision because they involve similar facts and legal issues.
Michael A. Sauwoir, Jim Buck
August 16, 1995
Page 1
In P-041-LU41-EOH, Mr. Sauwoir protests that Local Union 41 has made improper contributions to The Labor Times, a Kansas City, Missouri labor newspaper, by the Union’s “mass purchase, free distribution and financial support” of the paper in order to subsidize the paper’s alleged opposition to the candidacy of General President Ron Carey. In P-057-LU41-EOH, Jim Buck also alleges improper financial support of The Labor Times by Local
Union 41, specifically citing articles in the April 1994, November 1994, January 1995, February 1995, March 1995 and May 1995 issues of the paper for Union-financed attacks upon Mr. Carey. Mr. Buck also alleges that Local Union 41 discriminated against Mr. Carey’s candidacy by, beginning with the March 1995 issue, discontinuing its policy of mailing The Labor Times to the Local Union 41 membership, because that issue permitted Mr. Carey to respond to criticisms quoted in the preceding issue. The Election Officer has consolidated these protests for decision because they involve similar facts and legal issues.
Election Office Headquarters Staff Attorney Helene Boetticher and Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens investigated these protests on behalf of the Election Officer. The investigation included a review of the issues of The Labor Times cited by the protesters.
Both protesters allege that Local Union 41 has used its members’ dues monies to subsidize The Labor Times. Tom Bogdon, the editor of The Labor Times, informed the Election Office investigator that The Labor Times reports on matters of interest to labor unions in the Kansas City area and is independently published by All American Publishers. The paper is not directly financed by Local Union 41 or any other union. Mr. Bogdon states that Local Union 41 purchases copies of the paper for distribution to its membership, as do many Kansas City-area unions, but does not pay any direct financial subsidy to the paper.
Protester Jim Buck alleges that since at least early 1994, Local Union 41 had been purchasing and mailing copies of The Labor Times to each member at home. Mr. Buck contends that this practice ceased with the March 1995 issue, which contained the response of Mr. Carey to his critics who were quoted in the February 1995 issue. Local Union 41 President Phil Young responds, and The Labor Times editor confirms, that the Local Union has consistently purchased approximately 350 copies of each issue of the paper and made them available on a table in the Union hall, except for the September and November 1994 issues, which were mailed to each member at home because those issues contained Local 41 News, a bimonthly publication of the Local Union.
Protester Sauwoir points to several articles and pages in the November 1994 Labor Times which contain political attacks on the International administration. First, the protester cites a front-page article on the response of IBT Local Unions, including the Kansas City local, to employee requests for assistance in organizing Overnite, said to be the country’s fifth largest trucking company. The article reports that the organizing campaign is being carried out without assistance from the International Union. A representative from the International Union is quoted as saying that the International’s “organizing staff is working very hard” but “can’t be everywhere.”
Michael A. Sauwoir, Jim Buck
August 16, 1995
Page 1
The second alleged attack upon the Carey administration in the November 1994 Labor Times is said to be an article reporting on a lawsuit filed against the International Union by Teamster members and subordinate bodies charging that General President Carey and other International officers have quashed freedom of speech and association and dealt in bad faith with members who support the “Real Teamsters Caucus.” An International Union representative is quoted in response to the allegations, denying that the International has attempted to stifle members’ rights to free speech and association.
Finally, with respect to the November 1994 issue, the protester points to two pages which are headed “Teamsters Local 41 News” and contain, inter alia, a President’s Report, notices of Local 41 office hours, a listing of recent retirees, a list of chiropractors and other providers of benefits to Local Union 41 members, and an article on the effect of deregulation on the trucking industry. These pages make no mention of the International Union or its leadership.
The article on the effort to organize Overnite, a sizeable employer in the trucking industry, concerns a valid journalistic subject that is newsworthy and of interest and concern to the Union membership. See, Durham, P-250-IBT (February 5, 1991). The article contains no criticism of the International Union, whose representative is quoted on the International’s organizing priorities.
The article on the lawsuit against the International’s alleged efforts to suppress the rights of supporters of the Real Teamsters Caucus is also a report on a newsworthy matter of expected interest to Union members. The article quotes the plaintiff in the lawsuit and the IBT communications director, thus presenting the views of a proponent and opponent of the action.
The pages of the Labor Times devoted to Teamster Local 41 news consist entirely of matters of anticipated interest to the Local Union membership, including the views of the Local Union President and the availability of benefits. There is no explicit or implicit criticism on these pages of the International Union. Moreover, the Local Union president is entitled to use a union publication to express his views. Camarata v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F.Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979)
The protested article in the January 1995 issue, “Overnite Victory Achieved Without IBT Help,” is an update on the effort to organize Overnite Transportation drivers. The article reports on a vote in the Kansas City Overnite terminal to join the IBT and quotes Overnite drivers who accuse the International Union of failing to assist the organizing drive. The article praises Local Union 41 President Phil Young’s efforts to aid the campaign.[2] The Labor Times reported that “repeated” calls to the IBT’s communications and organizing departments were not returned.
Michael A. Sauwoir, Jim Buck
August 16, 1995
Page 1
Certainly, a vote to join the Union by Kansas City Overnite drivers is newsworthy and of expected concern to Kansas City Union members. The protested article reports criticisms of the International Union in the context of a current and local event, giving the International an opportunity to respond. Neither the coverage of the Overnite campaign or the lawsuit against the International mentions the candidacy of any Union member for any Union office, or the nominations and elections for delegate and International officer.
The front page of the February 1995 The Labor Times reports on speeches made at the Local Union 41 Stewards’ Seminar dinner held January 7, 1995. The article extensively quotes the dinner speakers, James P. Hoffa, R.V. Durham, and Sam Theodus, all of whom the article labels as “potential challengers” of Mr. Carey. The quotes from the dinner speakers are quite critical of Mr. Carey and his stewardship of the IBT. In the March 1995 issue, at the invitation of The Labor Times, Mr. Carey responded on the front page to his critics. The Labor Times, in the introduction to Mr. Carey’s response, also invited Teamsters officials and members to comment on the articles about the Stewards’ Seminar dinner and on Mr. Carey’s response. In May 1995, The Labor Times published letters to the editor from Union members who supported and who opposed General President Carey. Article VIII, Section 8(a)(5) of the Rules prohibits a Union-financed publication from containing “articles reporting on the activities of a particular candidate where the same or similar activities of other similarly situated candidates for the same office(s) have not been similarly reported.” Here, The Labor Times in its March 1995 and May 1995 issues gave space to Mr. Carey and his supporters that was similar to that given to his critics in the February 1995 and May 1995 issues. The Election Officer finds that the Local Union made the March 1995 issue of the The Labor Times available to its members on a table at the Local Union hall, the method by which it had distributed the February 1995 and most other issues of The Labor Times. Accordingly, the Local Union’s distribution of the March 1995 issue was not discriminatory.
The final protested article is an article in the May 1995 issue of The Labor Times reporting on activities of the International Teamsters Womens Caucus including the election of the Local Union 41 president’s secretary to the Womens Caucus Executive Board and a Caucus Convention in Las Vegas attended by Local Union 41 members in March 1995. Neither the election of International Teamsters Womens Caucus officers nor the Local
Union 41 presidency are elections covered by the Rules, which pertain to International delegates and officers. The May 1995 article does not therefore support or oppose any candidacy regulated by the Rules.
Based on the foregoing, the Election Officer finds neither Article VIII, Section 8(a) nor Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4) of the Rules have been violated and therefore, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Michael A. Sauwoir, Jim Buck
August 16, 1995
Page 1
Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon
180 Maiden Lane, 36th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Fax (212) 248-2655
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy
Michael Gordon, Regional Coordinator
[1]These “reach-back” protests were filed within the thirty-day period following the final promulgation of the Rules on April 24, 1995, and allege violations occurring prior to the issuance of the Rules. The Rules at Article XIV, Section 2(a), state:
Protests regarding violations of the [Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, as amended] (including violations of the IBT Constitution) allegedly occurring prior to the date of issuance of the Rules and protests regarding any conduct allegedly occurring within the first twenty-eight (28) days after issuance of the Rules must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance, or such protests shall be waived.
[2]The Election Officer does not find that Local Union 41 President Phil Young was a candidate within the meaning of the Rules in January 1995.