October 26, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
William J. Carothers
October 26, 1995
Page 1
William J. Carothers
10040 Marion Road
Redford, MI 48239
Art Hackworth
Consolidated Freightways
175 Linfield Drive
Menlow Park, CA 94025
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
William J. Carothers
October 26, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-194-LU299-MGN
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by William J. Carothers, who alleges that Consolidated Freightways ( the “Employer” or “CF”) has made a campaign contribution, in violation of Article XI, Section 1 of the Rules, by including in its newsletter a “flattering” photograph of James P. Hoffa, candidate for general president, campaigning at one of the Employer’s facilities, bearing the caption “Hoffa legacy in Bay Area.”
Mr. Hoffa denies the photograph is campaign material.
Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer, Jr. investigated the protest.
This Week at CF Motor freight is a newsletter published by the Employer. The Octo-ber 2, 1995 issue includes messages from management personnel, charts comparing the delivery of services in various states, suggestions on developing sales skills, news on competitors and clippings from other publications covering CF. The back page of the protested issue of the newsletter contains a photograph purporting to have appeared in the Saturday, September 23, 1995 issue of the San Jose Mercury News.
The photograph is headlined “Hoffa legacy in Bay Area.” The picture shows
William J. Carothers
October 26, 1995
Page 1
Mr. Hoffa talking to a couple of drivers in front of some trucks. Underneath the picture, the caption reads “Jim Hoffa, center, son of former Teamster President James R. ‘Jimmy’ Hoffa, talks with Abrahn Tarano, a driver for Consolidated Freightways, during an East Bay campaign stop. Hoffa, 54, is running for president of the Teamsters Union, challenging incumbent Ron Carey.”
The Rules define “campaign contribution” to include “any direct or indirect contribution where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate . . .”
Article XII, Section 1 (b) (1) of the Rules states as follows: “No employer 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 . . . The prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer to include a ban on the contributions or use of an employer stationery, equipment, facilities and personnel.” The prohibition against employer contributions to a campaign is in accord with Section 401(g) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which is incorporated into the Rules at Article XIII.
This Week at CF Motor Freight is an in-house publication intended to be read only by employees of CF. It is thus analogous to an official company notice posted on an official company bulletin board. See Barmon, Case No. P-468-LU769-SEC (March 1, 1991) (finding Employee Newswire, an in-house newsletter at Pan American World Airways, to be an employer within the meaning of the Rules prohibiting employer campaign contributions). It is not an independent news publication produced to provide general news information to the public.
It is of great concern to the Election Officer when an employer involves itself in any way in the election process. See Darrow, Case No. P-096-LU348-CLE (September 13, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 26 (KC) (October 23, 1995) (law firm newsletter referring to candidate’s campaign and including negative reference to candidate was an employer campaign contribution). To avoid violation of the Rules prohibiting employer contributions, it is advisable that employers, particularly those of Teamster members, avoid even factual reporting or reprinting of election related news in employee newsletters.[1]
William J. Carothers
October 26, 1995
Page 1
In this case, the Election Officer does not find the protested photograph to be a contribution to Mr. Hoffa’s campaign. In its context, it is one of various clippings CF has reproduced from independent publications covering activities at CF. The text accompanying the photograph is factual and notes that Mr. Hoffa is challenging “incumbent Ron Carey.” It does not express support for Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy and does not denigrate any other candidate and it is printed more than a year prior to the International officer election. In these circumstances, the clipping does not have the “purpose, object or foreseeable effect . . . to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate . . ” and therefore is not a prohibited campaign contribution.
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.
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
William A. Wertheimer, Jr., Regional Coordinator
[1]Unlike union publications which regularly and legitimately report on union business and internal union affairs, employers have no reason to involve themselves in the election of the IBT’s delegates or International officers.