July 21, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Michael Ruscigno, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
Michael Ruscigno
302 Summit Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07306
James Jacob
1377 Sassaquin Avenue
New Bedford, MA 02745
Darryl Sullivan
2059 Richmond
Arlington, TX 76014
Joint Council 37
1872 NE 162nd Ave.
Portland, OR 97230
Paul Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Suite 700
2000 P Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Michael Ruscigno, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
RE: Election Office Case No. P-065-JC37-EOH
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(a) of the Rules for
Michael Ruscigno, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).[1] The protesters, Michael Ruscigno, a member of Local Union 138, James Jacob, a member of Teamsters Local 251 and Darryl Sullivan, a member of Local Union 745, contend that Joint Council 37 improperly used its publication, the Oregon Teamster, to promote certain candidates for International office and to oppose others.
In support of their protest, protesters cite four instances in which the Oregon Teamster violated the Rules: derogatory comments about General President Ron Carey in the April 1994 issue; promotion in the June 1994 issue of the alleged candidacy of Joint Council 9 President R.V. Durham for International office; repeated pictures and coverage in the January 1995 issue of Joint Council 37 President Alfred O. Panek that were not newsworthy; and excessive coverage in the January 1995 issue of appearances by James P. Hoffa at events held by Local Union 81. Joint Council 37, publisher of the Oregon Teamster, did not respond to the protest.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Helene Boetticher. The Election Officer carefully reviewed the editions of the Oregon Teamster submitted in support of the protest.
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 of any person. . . .” Section 8(a) also sets forth specific illustrations of improper support of a candidate by a Union-financed publication.
As stated in Ruscigno, Case No. P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995), in determining whether a Union-financed publication violates the Rules, the Election Officer must first determine if the subject of the publication was a "candidate" at the time of publication.[2] If the member is 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.
Michael Ruscigno, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
Protestors allege that the first page of the April 1994 Oregon Teamster improperly attacks General President Carey by accusing him of unprecedented retaliation against his opponents and of trying “to strengthen his control and possibly save his office.” The Election Officer notes first that it does not appear that Mr. Carey was a candidate within the meaning of the Rules in April 1994. Furthermore, although the article is clearly not complimentary to Mr. Carey, it discusses issues which are of interest to the membership such as the defeat of the dues increase and the abolition of the Western Conference of Teamsters. There is no mention of the International Officer or delegate elections. Moreover, the protested article was published in April 1994, a time too remote from the 1996 International Officer elections for the criticisms of Mr. Carey to be considered part of a campaign to unseat him.
With respect to the June 1994 and January 1995 issues of the Oregon Teamster allegedly promoting R.V. Durham and Al Panek respectively, there is no evidence that at the time of publication either gentleman was a candidate in the 1995-96 elections for delegate and International officer. Therefore, there is no violation of Article VIII, Section 8(a) with respect to these publications.
The Election Officer has found that Mr. Hoffa was a candidate in January 1995, the time of publication of the issue of the Oregon Teamster allegedly promoting him. The protesters cite that issue for excessive coverage of appearances by Mr. Hoffa before the membership of Local Union 81, including a front page story, two headlines and three photographs featuring him. The Election Officer notes that Mr. Hoffa’s speeches as reported address national politics including legislative issues before Congress. The coverage of Mr. Hoffa’s appearances is factual in nature and makes no reference to the IBT election or to Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy. The photographs picture Mr. Hoffa delivering his speech and with Local Union 81 members. The reporting and photographs concern newsworthy matters that reasonably can be presumed to be of interest to Union members. See, Durham, P-250-IBT (February 5, 1991).
Accordingly, the protested portions of the Oregon Teamster do 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 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.
Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon
180 Maiden Lane, 36th Floor
New York, NY 10038
fax (212) 248 2655
Michael Ruscigno, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
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
Christine M. Mrak, 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 or alternate 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.