October 31, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
David Dunning
October 31, 1995
Page 1
David Dunning
7788 Trinklein Road
Saginaw, MI 48609
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
David Robinson
Teamsters Local Union 486
6165 Bay Road, Suite A
Saginaw, MI 48603
David Dunning
October 31, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-192-LU486-MGN
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1995 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by David Dunning, a member of Local Union 486. The protester alleges that Local Union 486 produced a letter, signed by James P. Hoffa for distribution to Michigan Teamsters, which attacked Ron Carey’s candidacy for general president of the IBT, in violation of the Rules.
Local Union 486 Secretary-Treasurer David Robinson contends the protest is untimely. On the merits, Mr. Robinson states the letter was written by Mr. Hoffa in his capacity as executive assistant to Joint Council 43 President Larry Brennan, not as a candidate. He further contends the information in the letter is not campaigning because it is factual, does not mention any candidate, it references no election, and there is no direct or indirect effect on the current delegate election in Local Union 486.
Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer, Jr. investigated the protest.
David Dunning
October 31, 1995
Page 1
As to timeliness, the protest was filed on October 10, 1995. Local Union 486 states that the letter that is the subject of this protest was mailed to stewards in August 1995. The protester is a steward, but states he did not receive the letter. The protester states that he has been on sick leave since January 17, 1995 and did not see the letter until he visited United Parcel Service on October 6, 1995 to advise his employer of his return to work in November 1995.
Article XIV, Section 2(b) requires that a protest be filed “within two (2) working days of the day when the protester becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested . . .” The Election Officer finds that the protester filed his protest within two working days of the day when he became aware or the action protested, and therefore, the protest is timely.
The protested letter is signed by James P. Hoffa on Local Union 486 letterhead addressed to “Michigan Teamster Members” soliciting their assistance to union members on strike against Detroit’s two major daily newspapers. Mr. Hoffa’s name appears in the letter’s signature without an identifying title. He begins the letter by advising that Joint Council 43 President Larry Brennan has asked him to contact Michigan Teamsters to help union members on strike against the Detroit dailies. Mr. Hoffa explains the significance of the strike and asks the members to cancel their subscription to the struck papers and make a financial donation to the strikers.
The protester complains that the letter is an attack on Mr. Carey’s candidacy because of two sentences. The first sentence follows a request for a donation and reads, “Because of the IBT financial crisis, these members are receiving no strike benefits.” Mr. Hoffa then tells about a contribution made by Joint Council 43, and asks for a similar show of “solidarity.” The second sentence causing concern to the protester follows, with emphasis in the original “Although there are six unions involved in this fight, the 1,455 Teamsters are the only ones without weekly strike fund benefits.” (Emphasis in original.) The protester charges that the letter “appears to make a veiled, if not direct, pejorative reference to the present condition of the Strike fund under the Carey administration.”
Joint Council 43 states that one reason Mr. Hoffa signed the letter was because he has served as “Michigan Chairman of the Joint Council strike fund” since December 1994. The joint council also contends that Mr. Hoffa’s name was used because Mr. Hoffa’s name would get a better response from the membership than Mr. Brennan’s name.
Joint Council 43 sent a copy of the letter to all Michigan local unions asking each to send the letter on its own letterhead to all of their members. The joint council offered to pay for the reproduction of the letter and, if the local union could not afford the postage, for the mailing to the local union membership. To date, only Local Union 486 and one other local union has mailed the letter to its respective memberships. Both unions mailed the letter in August 1995. Joint Council 43 is continuing to encourage local unions to distribute the letter.
David Dunning
October 31, 1995
Page 1
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 in a union-financed publication.
The Election Officer has previously found that Mr. Carey was a candidate within the meaning of the Rules prior to the time of the mailing of the letter at issue here. The Election Officer, therefore, applies the criteria in the Rules for determining whether a publication “support[s] or attack[s] any candidate” and considers the tone, content and timing of the publication in question, as well as its context. Martin, Case No. P-10-IBT-PNJ, et al.
(August 18, 1995), aff’d 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995); Ruscigno, Case
No. P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995).
This published communication is within the legitimate discharge of duties performed by a union staff member. See Dunn, P-104-IBT-SCE (August 23, 1995). The Election Officer has already held that the availability of strike benefits is a matter of legitimate concern to the union member-ship. See Hoffa, Case No. P-126-IBT-EOH (October 4, 1995). Moreover, the letter cannot be characterized as campaigning just because the protester reads it to imply criticism of the International Union for failing to provide strike benefits. In the context of a plea for funds, it is reasonable to note that IBT members are without a strike fund.
Nor does Mr. Hoffa’s signature on the letter signify that the letter is campaign literature. The Election Officer finds that Mr. Hoffa’s signature is on the letter because of his assigned duties and because of his name recognition. This communication, therefore, does not violate Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules.
The protester also alleges that if an employer permitted posting of the letter in its facility, then the employer would violate the ban on employer contributions set forth in the Rules. The Election Officer will not decide a protest on the basis of conjecture. Furthermore, the finding that the letter is not a prohibited campaign contribution ends any further inquiry.
Accordingly, 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.
Latham and Watkins
885 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
David Dunning
October 31, 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: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
William A. Wertheimer, Regional Coordinator