February 15, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Diana Kilmury
February 15, 1996
Page 1
Diana Kilmury, Vice President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
2612 E. 47th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5S 1C1
Garnet Zimmerman, President
Teamsters Local Union 31
#1 Grosvenor Square
Annacis Island
Delta, BC V3M 5S1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Diana Kilmury
February 15, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-303-LU31-CAN
Gentlepersons:
Diana Kilmury, a candidate for International vice-president and a member of the
Ron Carey slate, filed a protest pursuant to the Rules for the IBT 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that Local Union 31 President
Garnet Zimmerman, a member of the James P. Hoffa slate, improperly used 31 TEAMwork, a union-financed publication, to support the candidacy of Mr. Hoffa for general president.
Don Davies, a member of the editorial board of 31 TEAMwork, responds that the newspaper reported on Mr. Hoffa’s campaign stop in Vancouver, British Columbia, which was a newsworthy event. Additionally, he states that the newspaper will offer equal treatment, space and prominence to any candidate for general president who visits Vancouver.
Regional Coordinator Gwen K. Randall investigated this protest.
Diana Kilmury
February 15, 1996
Page 1
An article entitled “Hoffa visits Vancouver” appears on pages 12 and 13 of the December 1995 issue of the quarterly newsletter published by Local Union 31. The article begins by stating that Mr. Hoffa recently spent three days in the Vancouver area “campaigning and bringing his message to local Teamsters” and lists work sites and events where Mr. Hoffa appeared during his visit. Mr. Hoffa, it is reported, campaigned along with his Canadian running mates, Local Union 31 President Garnet Zimmerman and Joint Council 52 Vice President Tom Baldwin. The article identifies three themes focused on by the candidate in discussions during his appearances: the record of the incumbents; a prediction of the achievements of his administration, if elected; and his desire to unify the IBT. Most of the remainder of the article consists of quotations from Mr. Hoffa explaining these themes.
The article notes, “Not everyone who heard Bro. Hoffa speak agreed with these sentiments,” quoting the protester, who reportedly “attacked Bro. Hoffa during his visit,” saying “Jimmy Hoffa sucks, his children suck, and his grandchildren will surely suck.”
Just after the end of the article, a boldface paragraph states, “Local 31 TEAMwork is committed to printing interviews with all candidates for General President who visit Vancouver.”
Two photographs of Mr. Hoffa during his visit accompany the article. In one,
Mr. Hoffa is shown talking to Local Union 31 members at United Parcel Service. In another, Mr. Hoffa is shown with other slate members speaking to “an auditorium full of
Teamsters . . .” Both pictures are of a size comparable to other photographs in the newsletter.
The protester also objects to a cartoon included in 31 TEAMwork drawn by the 10-year-old son of a shop steward showing a newspaper page containing the words: “James R. Hoffas (sic) son comes to town having lunch with his fellow Teamsters. Yes Jimmy Hoffa Jr. is here and is making a comeback.” The cartoonist’s father writes below the cartoon that his son created the newspaper with his friends at school, and adds “Teamsters are not just a Union, but a family.”
Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication may not be "used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person" and provides criteria for determining whether the communication is campaign material. The Election Officer has consistently used the "tone, timing and content" test in determining when publications constitute campaigning. Martin, et al., P-010-IBT-PNJ
(August 17, 1995) et seq., aff'd, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995); Jacob, P-071-LU319-EOH (September 7, 1995), aff'd, 95 - Elec. App. - 19 (KC) (October 3, 1995); Ruscigno, P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995). She also "reviews the specific context in which the communication takes place." Jacob, supra.
One of the criteria limiting union-financed publications in Article VIII, Section 8(a)(5) states, “A Union-financed newspaper or other publication or communication shall not:
. . . contain pictures or articles reporting on the activities of a particular candidate where the same or similar activities of other similar situated candidates for the same office(s) have not been similarly reported.”
Diana Kilmury
February 15, 1996
Page 1
In Carey, et al., Case No. P-954-IBT et seq. (November 14, 1991), the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters newspaper reported on speeches given at a meeting of Joint
Council 53 by various candidates for International office who were all members of one slate. The Election Officer described the coverage given the candidates:
The introductions to each of the speeches referred to each speaker as a candidate in the forthcoming election. While the speeches did not contain explicit campaign propaganda, each speaker discussed his perception of the problems facing the IBT and his opinions about the solutions--his vision of the future of IBT. In other words, these speeches, without explicitly stating ‘here is why you should vote for me,” implied as much; the only missing element of what would be viewed as a typical campaign speech was negative comments about the opposition. The substance of the speeches were virtually indistinguishable from a standard campaign stump speech . . . While the selection of each of the speakers may be explainable apart from their candidacy on the Shea-Ligurotis Slate, the absence of anyone other than these candidates is significant.
The Election Officer found in Carey, supra that the combination of the partisan speeches at the Joint Council meeting and the newspaper account of the speeches violated restrictions on union-financed publications stated in the Rules. There is no question that the protested article in 31 TEAMwork similarly includes explicit campaign material.
The protested article is also similar to the newspaper article covering speeches at the Local Union 41 Stewards’ Seminar at issue in Sauwoir, P-041-LU41-EOH, et seq. (August 16, 1996). The speeches there were by various “potential challengers” of Ron Carey who spoke critically of Mr. Carey and his administration. There, the Election Officer found that the criteria in the Rules were met by allowing Mr. Carey to respond in the following issue of the newspaper in a space similar to that given his critics.
Thus, the Local Union 31 newspaper has reported on Mr. Hoffa’s campaign activities without affording a similar opportunity to Mr. Carey and to C. Sam Theodus, the other candidates for general president. The article does not include a response from the other candidates, although the local union states its willingness to report on any campaigning if done in Vancouver. However, the local union publication may not condition the equal treatment required under the Rules upon a candidate making a campaign stop in Vancouver. Addi-tionally, in its context in this particular issue of 31 TEAMwork, the cartoon drawn by the young son of a Local Union 31 shop steward proclaiming a “comeback” by Mr. Hoffa also supports his campaign in violation of Article VII, Section 8(a) of the Rules.
The protest is GRANTED.
Diana Kilmury
February 15, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer is empowered to remedy violations of the Rules by whatever action is appropriate. The Election Officer notes that the next quarterly issue of 31 TEAMwork is scheduled for March 1996, while the ballot count scheduled for the local union is on March 13, 1996. The local union has advised that it does not have a particular date in March for publi-cation of 31 TEAMwork. Therefore, in view of the election schedule and in order to afford the other candidates a similar opportunity for access to the membership prior to the ballot count, the Election Officer orders that Mr. Carey and Mr. Theodus, shall be afforded a mailing to the Local Union 31 membership, to be paid for by Local Union 31, of an article or campaign literature on one side of an 8 ½ by 11 inch page. See Carey, supra (ordering remedy of mailing for violation of Rules by union-financed publication close to time of election). The local union may mail both candidates’ material in a single mailing. If Mr. Carey and/or Mr. Theodus desire to submit such literature, they should send it by mail or facsimile to Local Union 31 in camera-ready form, within seven (7) days of the date of this decision. The local union shall mail the literature within five (5) days of its receipt from the candidate(s). Within two (2) after completion of the mailing,
Mr. Zimmerman shall submit an affidavit to the Election Officer describing his compliance with the foregoing order.
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, 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
Gwen K. Randall, Regional Coordinator