Protest Decisions

November 15, 1995

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Tyrone D. Simpson

November 15, 1995

Page 1

Tyrone D. Simpson

17 West 150th

Harvey, IL 60426

Claude Brown, Chairman

Teamsters National Black Caucus

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Eddie Kornegay, Trustee

Teamsters Local Union 743

300 S. Ashland Avenue

Chicago, IL 60607

Carroll E. Haynes, President

Teamsters Local Union 237

216 W. 14th Street

New York, NY 10011

Aaron Belk, Vice President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Ron Carey, General President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

John Sullivan

Associate General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Lorelei Anderson

Teamsters Local Union 705

1645 W. Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60612

Susan Davis

Cohen, Weiss & Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036

Tyrone D. Simpson

November 15, 1995

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-195-IBT-SCE

Gentlepersons:

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by

Tyrone D. Simpson

November 15, 1995

Page 1

Tyrone D. Simpson, a member of Local Union 703, who alleges that the Teamsters National Black Caucus (“TNBC”) and certain candidates for International office improperly used the TNBC Convention (“Convention”) as a “political forum.” 

The protester specifically charges the following members with violating the Rules: Claude Brown, chairman of the TNBC; Aaron Belk, International vice president;

Eddie Kornegay, International trustee; Carroll Haynes, president of Local Union 237; and Lorelei Anderson, an elected union representative from Local Union 705.  With the exception of Mr. Brown, all of the persons charged by this protest are members of the Ron Carey slate. 

The protester does not allege any specific instances of improper campaign activity at the Convention.  Rather, he asserts that Mr. Belk, Mr. Kornegay and Mr. Haynes were “allowed to speak,” while Leroy Ellis, a candidate for International vice president and Charlie Walker, an International vice president, were not given like opportunities.  The Carey slate is not associated with either of these persons.  The protester further asserts that Ms. Anderson was “escorted among the delegates, when not in session by Eddie Kornegay and Claude Brown, and was being introduced as a candidate on the Ron Carey Slate.”   Mr. Simpson further contends that neither Ms. Anderson nor Mr. Haynes had attended a TNBC convention before.  No justification for their presence existed, declares the protester, other than to advance their “political aspirations.”

On behalf of Mr. Belk and Mr. Brown, the IBT responds that no union funds were utilized in connection with their travel to the Convention.  Moreover, the IBT contends that Mr. Belk was conducting legitimate union business by participating in the convention. 

Mr. Brown, the IBT states, participated in the Convention as a member of the Caucus. 

Mr. Haynes, Ms. Anderson and Mr. Kornegay concede that their attendance at the Convention was sponsored with union funds,[1]  but similarly deny engaging in any campaign activity. 

Mr. Brown and Mr. Kornegay specifically deny that they circulated among the delegates introducing Ms. Anderson in her capacity as a candidate and Carey slate member.

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.

The Convention was held in Memphis, Tennessee on October 6 and 7, 1995.  All current candidates for International president were invited to the Convention.  Mr. Belk gave a short welcoming address to the delegates which focused on the activities of the TNBC and a Memphis local.  Mr. Brown gave no formal presentation.  Mr. Kornegay conducted a workshop on the subject of “grassroots” organizing and moderated the passage of two resolutions.  One of these measures dealt with the location of the next Convention and the other related to the use of TNBC funds for retirees. 

Tyrone D. Simpson

November 15, 1995

Page 1

Mr. Haynes was invited to attend this Convention because of related work he was performing in connection with the Teamsters Civil Rights Conference.  He was confirmed as an executive board member by unanimous vote at the Convention.  The protester has submitted evidence of an apparent ongoing dispute as to the propriety of Mr. Haynes’ appointment to the TNBC’s executive board.

Ms. Anderson did not speak at the Convention.  This was her second appearance, having previously attended in 1993.

Participation in “campaign activity” as that term is used in the Rules and defined by the Election Officer, is guaranteed to all members by Article VIII, Section 11(a).   The use of union funds and union resources to campaign, however, is prohibited.  See, Rules, Article VIII, Section 11 and Article XII, Section 1(b)(3).               

In order to determine whether activity is protected campaigning or a prohibited campaign contribution, it must first be determined that the protested conduct is directed toward a “candidate.”  Once “candidate” status is affirmatively ascertained, the Election Officer proceeds to determine whether the communication was used to “support or attack” an individual in his or her candidate capacity.  Martin, et al., P-101-IBT-PNJ et seq., (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995); Ruscigno, P-067-LU20-EOH

(July 19, 1995).  Whether or not a communication supports or attacks a candidate is determined by measuring it against the tone, timing, content and context in which it was made. Martin, supra. 

While Mr. Belk, Mr. Kornegay, Mr. Haynes and Ms. Anderson are all current candidates for International office running on the incumbent slate, there is no evidence to support the protester’s allegation that they engaged in any campaign activities at the Convention.  The delegates attending the Convention passed a resolution prohibiting campaigning.  No evidence was submitted by the protester or disclosed by the investigation to show that the resolution barring campaigning was violated by any delegate.  Rather, the evidence reflects that the speakers delivered speeches and engaged in activities consistent with the conduct of legitimate union business, customary at a meeting of this kind.  There is insufficient evidence to show that Ms. Anderson was “escorted” around the Convention floor and introduced as a candidate.  Similarly, the evidence submitted to connect the debate concerning Mr. Haynes’ appointment to the executive board with an act of campaigning was insufficient.  

A determination that “campaigning” has occurred requires some evidence that communication has taken place which involves “advocacy of the nomination, and election or defeat of a candidate for office.”  Belk, P-117-JC87-SCE (September 20, 1995).  The available evidence discloses no such advocacy and there is consequently no violation of the Rules.

Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.

Tyrone D. Simpson

November 15, 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.

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

Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator