August 3, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Gillian Furst
August 3, 1995
Page 1
Gillian Furst
3813 Harriet Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55409
Teamsters Joint Council 7
150 Executive Park Blvd., Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94134
Teamsters Joint Council 13
1401 Hampton Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63139
Teamsters Local Union 391
3100 Sandy Ridge Rd.
Colfax, NC 27235
International Teamsters Women’s Caucus
PO Box 4281
Toledo, OH 43609
Gillian Furst
August 3, 1995
Page 1
RE: Election Office Case No. P-059-JC13-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Gillian Furst
August 3, 1995
Page 1
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2 (a) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 I.B.T. International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).[1] The protester, Gillian Furst, a member of Local Union 1145, contends that an article in December 1992 issue of the Missouri Teamster, a publication of Joint Council 13 and the March/April 1995 issue of The Voice of Teamsters 391, a publication of Local Union 391, gave improper support to the International Women’s Caucus, which the protester alleges is “part of a force in the union seeking to unseat” General President Ron Carey.
Local Union 391 responds that the International Women’s Caucus is not involved in electioneering. Joint Council 13 responds that there is no evidence to support the protester’s allegation that the International Women’s Caucus was engaged in internal Union politics.
The investigation was conducted by Election Office Staff Attorney Helene Boetticher.
The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 8(a), provide 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 or any person . . .” Section 8(a) also sets forth specific illustrations of improper support of a candidate by a Union-financed publication.
A Union-financed publication does not violate the Rules unless the subject of the printed matter was a “candidate” at the time it is published. Ruscigno, P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995). [2]
It does not appear that Mr. Carey was a candidate within the meaning of the Rules at the time the article in the December 1992 Missouri Teamster was published. Moreover, the cited article is simply a report on the International Women’s Caucus and makes no mention of Mr. Carey.
The Election Officer has previously found Mr. Carey was a candidate in March/April 1995 when the article in The Voice of Teamsters 391 was published. See, Martin, P-10-IBT-PNJ, et al. (July 27, 1995). Because Mr. Carey was a candidate at the time of the allegedly prohibited publication, the Election Officer applies the criteria in the Rules and considers the “tone, content and timing” of the publication in question. See, Ruscigno, P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995).
Gillian Furst
August 3, 1995
Page 1
The article cited by the protester in the March/April issue of The Voice of Teamsters 391 describes the convention of the International Teamster Women’s Caucus in Las Vegas and the Local Union members who attended. It makes no mention of the IBT election or the candidacy of any union member, including Mr. Carey. The Election Officer, therefore, finds this article does not support or attack the candidacy of any person as prohibited by Article VIII, Section 8 of the Rules, 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 Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
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
Judy Kuhn, Regional Coordinator
[1]This “reach-back” protest was filed within the thirty day period following the final promulgation of the Rules on April 24, 1995, and alleges 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]Under the Rules, “candidate” is defined as:
[A]ny member who is actively seeking nomination or election for any Convention delegate position or International Officer position. The term includes any member who has accepted any campaign contribution as defined by the Rules or made any expenditure, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution or expenditure is to influence the election of that member to any such position.