July 21, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
T.C. Stone, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
T.C. Stone
Teamsters Local Union 745
1007 Jonelle St.
Dallas, TX 75217
Allen Stanford
Teamsters Local Union 745
1007 Jonelle St.
Dallas, TX 75217
Mike Kline
Teamsters Local Union 745
1007 Jonelle Street
Dallas, TX 75217
Clarence Knowles
Teamsters Local Union 745
1007 Jonelle St.
Dallas, TX 75217
Charles Rogers
Teamsters Local Union 745
1007 Jonelle St.
Dallas, TX 75217
Tyson Johnson
Teamsters Local Union 745
1007 Jonelle St.
Dallas, TX 75217
Gill Johnson
Teamsters Local Union 745
1007 Jonelle St.
Dallas, TX 75217
James L. Hicks, Jr., Esq.
Hicks & Associates, P.C.
1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 760.
Dallas, TX 75247
Paul Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group
2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
T.C. Stone, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
Election Office Case No. P-085-IBT-PNJ
Gentlemen:
T.C. Stone, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
A pre-election protest was filed with the Election Officer pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by James L. Hicks, Jr., an attorney, on behalf of the seven members of the Local Union 745 Executive Board.
By letter dated June 1, 1995, the protesters contend that Public Citizen Litigation Group (“PCLG”), an employer, has provided free legal services to IBT members in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the protesters allege that three protests[1] filed by PCLG on behalf of IBT members were actually filed on behalf of General President Ron Carey’s candidacy and propose pro-Carey remedies to promote Mr. Carey’s candidacy. The Rules allow an organization to contribute free legal services to assure IBT members’ compliance with the Rules. The protesters contend that PCLG exceeded this allowance. The protesters ask the Election Officer to find that PCLG violated the Rules by actively working to advance the interests of the Carey campaign.
In response, PCLG states that, while it is an employer, the organization is in no way connected to Mr. Carey’s campaign. PCLG contends that it has permissibly provided legal services to IBT members as allowed under the Rules and Section 401(g) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosures Act, as amended (“LMRDA”). PCLG argues that such contributions have been upheld by federal courts interpreting both the Rules and Section 401(g). PCLG also states that it has not provided legal services to Mr. Carey’s campaign but has provided legal services only to the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”), the Teamster Rank and File Defense Fund and various Teamster members who request PCLG’s services. Finally, PCLG argues that it is appropriate to suggest a remedy to the Election Officer for an alleged Rules violation.
This case was investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr.
The protesters’ basis for connecting PCLG and the Carey campaign is twofold. First, they cite references to potential Election Officer remedies which, they contend, promote the Carey campaign in protests filed by PCLG on behalf of three IBT members. Second, they allege that a TDU representative instructed the three IBT members to contact PCLG to receive legal representation, and therefore the members did not specifically solicit the legal services of PCLG. The protesters presented no further support for their contentions.
T.C. Stone, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules expressly forbids employer contributions of anything of value to candidates for delegate, alternate delegate or International officer positions.[2] Section 1(b)(2) provides the exception to this outright prohibition:
Except as otherwise provided herein, the rules in subparagraph (1) above do not prohibit a candidate’s use of financial support or services from employers or labor organizations to pay fees for legal or accounting services performed in assuring compliance with applicable election laws, rules or other requirements or in securing, defending, or clarifying the legal rights of candidates, if and only to the extent such contributions are received in response to solicitations specifically requesting such funds or services or are contributions so earmarked by the contributor at the time the contribution is made.
In U.S. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 931 F.2d 177, 189 (2d Cir. 1991), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted language that was contained in the 1991 Rules (which were nearly identical to the exception in Article XII, Section 1(b)(2)) of the 1995-1996 Rules) and squared it with Section 401(g) prohibitions[3] against “promot[ing] the candidacy of any person.” Id. The Court held that the prohibition is “limited to aiding campaign advocacy and [does not include] accounting and legal services.” The Court of Appeals explicitly deemed that the Consent Decree’s employer contribution exception for accounting and legal expenses incorporated “prevailing legal standards, including the Supreme Court’s Sadlowski decision.” Id.[4]
Applying these standards, therefore, the protesters must demonstrate that PCLG’s activities are prohibited employer contributions directly in support of a political candidate.
The Election Officer finds the evidence presented does not establish a nexus connecting PCLG to the Carey campaign in violation of the Rules thereby converting a permissible contribution into a prohibited one. Moreover, the scope of remedies available when the Election Officer finds a violation in any protest is solely within the discretion of the Election Officer. The legal representative’s suggestion of possible remedies on these protesters’ behalf does not establish that PCLG’s assistance was campaign advocacy in this case. Similarly, even if the protesters received advice from a TDU representative as to the availability of legal services with PCLG, the Election Officer finds this does not establish that PCLG was working on behalf of Carey’s election campaign in providing these protesters with legal assistance.
In accordance with the foregoing, therefore, this protest is DENIED.
T.C. Stone, et al.
July 21, 1995
Page 1
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
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,
BBarbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy
Regional Coordinators
[1] P-053-LU391-EOH, P-060-LU745-SOU and P-074-JC7-EOH.
[2]Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) reads:
No employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. These prohibitions are not limited to employers that have contracts with the Union; they extend to every employer, regardless of the nature of the business, and include, but are not limited to, any political action organization that employs any staff; any nonprofit organization, such as a church or civic group, that employs any staff; and any law firm or professional organization that employs any staff. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer and include contributions or use of employer stationery, equipment, facilities and personnel.
[3] Section 401(g) of the LMRDA is incorporated into the Rules at Article XIII. Section 401(g) reads, in relevant part:
No moneys received by any labor organization by way of dues, assessment, or similar levy, and no moneys of an employer shall be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in an election subject to the provisions of this title. . . .
[4] In United Steelworkers of America v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102, 119 (1982), the Court upheld a "no outsider" contribution rule promulgated by the Union. Nonetheless, the Court held that no rule may prohibit “union members from accepting financial or other support from nonmembers for the purpose of conducting campaign-related litigation.”