Protest Decisions

October 12, 1995

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

James P. Hoffa

October 12, 1995

Page 1

James P. Hoffa

October 12, 1995

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No.  P-093-IBT-PNJ

Gentlepersons:

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 letter dated June 20, 1995, James P. Hoffa protests that Nancy Stella, a Communications Coordinator in the IBT’s Communications Department, has used union resources to continuously and systematically campaign on behalf of General President Ron Carey and against Mr. Hoffa, a candidate for general president.  Mr. Hoffa attached an article entitled “Teamsters Say Hoffa Leadership Needed” from the June 18, 1995 issue of the Springfield News Leader.  Quotes in the article are attributed to Ms. Stella.

In further support of his protest, by letter dated July 18, 1995, Mr. Hoffa submitted a copy of a protest filed by International Trustee Ben Leal, designated as Election Office Case No. P-051-IBT-CSF.[1]  Attached to the protest were three IBT press releases about the International trustee positions.  One of the attached releases lists Ms. Stella as the IBT contact person. 

James P. Hoffa

October 12, 1995

Page 1

Mr. Hoffa also submitted a flyer produced by the IBT Communications Department entitled “Background on Some of the ‘Sources’ for Smears Against Ron Carey.”  The flyer, dated

March 31, 1994, mentions Mr. Hoffa and his candidacy for International Office.  The flyer also refers to a book that alleges mob ties to Mr. Hoffa.

In response, the IBT contends that while Ms. Stella engaged in some of the activities protested by Mr. Hoffa,[2] such activities served legitimate institutional interests of the International Union and were not campaigning on behalf of Mr. Carey or against Mr. Hoffa.  The International asserts that maintaining an effective public relations operation to convey a positive image of the International Union to its various audiences is a legitimate institutional activity.  Through the Communications Department, the IBT responds to information that is inaccurate or misleading, explains why the IBT views the information differently, and attempts to explain that the critics of the current IBT leadership may have their own interests or motivation for criticizing the current IBT administration.  Thus, according to the IBT, responding to reporters is a regular part of Ms. Stella’s job as communications coordinator for the IBT.  The fact that a particular institutional issue on which a member of the Communications Department may comment is also a campaign issue does not deprive the IBT of the right to provide a response.

This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr.

The importance and difficulty of distinguishing between campaign speech and other forms of permissible communication was previously addressed by the Election Officer:

The distinction between campaign speech and other forms of verbal communication . . . directly affects how incumbent officers . . . may use the powers of [their] office and the financial resources of the union.  Camarata v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981).  Accord, Donovan v. Metro. Dist. Council of Carpenters.  It directly affects the extent to which “union members are free to discuss union policies and criticize the leadership without fear of reprisal” in a “vigorous debate” that must take on increased importance as an election approaches.  United Steelworkers of Amer. v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102, 112 (1982).  The balance between protected speech and impermissible campaigning must be carefully struck.  Restrictions on speech must not be read so broadly as to restrict the right and responsibility of union officers to conduct union business.  Nor should the Rules prohibit opponents of those officers from criticizing those policies.

Crawley, P-027-LU-988-PNJ, et. seq. (August 23, 1995).

James P. Hoffa

October 12, 1995

Page 1

Ms. Stella is identified in the Springfield News Leader article as a Teamsters spokeswoman.  The article was written about a rally and a planned appearance by Mr. Hoffa at a local union membership meeting.  The article is 18 paragraphs long.  Most of the article presents quotes from IBT members praising Mr. Hoffa and attacking Mr. Carey’s stewardship of the union.  In one paragraph, the article comments on Mr. Carey’s imposition of trusteeships on local unions.  Responding for the IBT, Ms. Stella stated, “This is a process that an [I]nternational union uses to enforce ethical conduct on its affiliates.”  The next two paragraphs of the article reads: 

The people who are most closely allied with Hoffa’s campaign “have been on the losing end of some of the cuts in excessive salaries and outrageous multiple salaries and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy,” Stella said.  Carey also accepts a salary of $150,000, a third less than what the constitution allows, she added.

According to the IBT, in responding to the reporter’s questions a few days before the article appeared in the Springfield News Leader, Ms. Stella attempted to provide the International union’s views on the accuracy of the comments by Mr. Hoffa’s supporters as related to her by the reporter.  The reporter asked some questions about the efforts of the IBT to clean up corruption and, in describing the union’s efforts, Ms. Stella explained that the effort to reform certain practices has inevitably affected those with vested interests in such practices.  Ms. Stella does not specifically recall referring to Mr. Hoffa.  The IBT states it is not her practice to refer to particular names in discussing these issues.

Ms. Stella’s statements pertained to important issues of legitimate concern to the IBT--union trusteeships and IBT finances.  The reporter does not quote Ms. Stella when he uses

Mr. Hoffa’s name or that of his campaign in the article. The Election Officer finds that in responding to the reporter for the Springfield News Leader, Ms. Stella’s activities were conducting legitimate union business for the IBT and not campaigning.

The press releases submitted in Mr. Hoffa’s July 18, 1995 letter also do not constitute campaigning.  The “Are Teamster Trustees a Voice For Reform?” press release, dated May 25, 1994, prominently and critically refers to IBT Trustees Robert DeRusha, Robert Simpson, and Ben Leal.  None of the three were candidates for IBT office at the time the releases were published.[3]

James P. Hoffa

October 12, 1995

Page 1

The December 13, 1994 press release announced that the IBT was seeking permission from United States District Court Judge David N. Edelstein to permit such elections of International trustees.  The January 3, 1995 press release announced that Judge Edelstein had approved the IBT’s request.   These press releases pertain to an issue of importance to IBT members--whether IBT trustees should be elected by direct rank-and-file ballot as approved by delegates attending the IBT’s 1991 International Union Convention.

Finally, Mr. Hoffa protests a communication dated March 31, 1994 entitled “Background on Some of the ‘Sources’ for Smears Against Ron Carey.”   Mr. Hoffa became a candidate for general president in March 1994.  See Crawley, supra.  The one-page flyer names several individuals as sources for allegedly running a smear campaign against Ron Carey.   Mr. Hoffa’s name is mentioned under paragraphs mentioning “Rich Leebove/George Geller.”  In relevant part, the flyer states:

Leebove and Geller are now the p.r. man and lawyer, respectively, for Larry Brennan and James P. Hoffa, both of whom as inheritors of union positions exemplify the “family business” approach to unionism which Ron Carey and his supporters are attempting to bring to an end.  Brennan in 1992 made $122,000 off multiple Teamster salaries, while heading a local about the same size as Carey’s.  Hoffa is being paid close to $50,000 to be listed as an assistant to Brennan so that he can be a Teamster member long enough to qualify to run for General President in 1996.  Mob Lawyer, a new book by Frank Ragano and Selwyn Raab which details charges of misuse of Teamster members’ pension funds in schemes involving the Mob and Jimmy Hoffa, claims that Hoffa Jr. received $200,000 in cash at his wedding from Mob chieftains such as Santo Trafficante and Carlos Marcello and other friends of Hoffa Sr.

The IBT acknowledges that the flyer was produced by IBT Communications Director Matt Witt.  Rather than being an attack on Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy, however, the IBT characterizes the flyer as noncampaign activity produced in response to press inquiries about criticism of Mr. Carey being disseminated by individuals inside and outside the union.  The  individuals mentioned in the flyer, such as Mr. Hoffa, were those attempting to pass themselves off as disinterested news sources when they all had partisan reasons for proffering the information.   The union considered the information spread by these individuals to be especially damaging because a freight strike was occurring at that time and there was an internal union debate on the propriety of instituting an increase in union dues.

James P. Hoffa

October 12, 1995

Page 1

In considering the above, The Election Officer finds that the communication in question does not violate the Rules given the timing and the context in which the release was made.  Although the flyer’s language comes close to becoming campaigning--stating Mr. Hoffa’s name, his candidacy status, and alleging mob ties--the flyer was distributed to the press in March 1994.  This was well over a year before any delegate or alternate delegate elections were schedule to occur and two years before the direct-ballot election, which will occur in November-December 1996.  This factor, in conjunction with the intense media attention being given to Mr. Carey at that time, buttresses the IBT’s claims that the communication was distributed to present the IBT’s response to criticisms of Mr. Carey as general president and not to attack Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy.[4]   Therefore, no Rules violation occurred.

Based upon the foregoing, this protest in all respects 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.

Latham & Watkins

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY 10022

Fax (212) 751-4864

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:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Peter V. Marks, Sr., Regional Coordinator