March 26, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
March 26, 1996
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Office of Professional Employees
International Union
265 W. 14th Street, Suite 610
New York, NY 10011
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Judith A. Scott, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
John J. Sullivan, Assoc. General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Susan Davis
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James P. Hoffa
March 26, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-403-IBT-SCE
Gentlepersons:
James P. Hoffa
March 26, 1996
Page 1
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 James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president. Mr. Hoffa alleges that the IBT pressured and coerced Local 2 of the Office of Professional Employees International Union (“OPEIU”), regarding its selection of George Kapanoske, an IBT employee who was on a leave of absence, as Local 2’s collective bargaining representative in negotiations with the IBT. The IBT’s efforts, and the OPEIU’s acquiescence in these efforts, the protester contends, were for the express purpose, object and foreseeable effect of influencing the “leadership battle for the Presidency of the IBT,” and therefore constitute improper contributions to the Ron Carey campaign, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules.
The IBT responds that the protested action occurred long before anyone was a candidate under the Rules.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
Mr. Kapanoske is an employee of the IBT, and a member of Local 2, OPEIU, which currently represents certain IBT employees. He is not a member of the IBT. On May 20, 1993, Mr. Kapanoske wrote a memo to General President Ron Carey requesting a leave of absence to enable him to work on behalf of Local 2. There was no contract between the IBT and the OPEIU at this time. At that time, the OPEIU informed the IBT that its policy prohibited its members from representing their own bargaining unit, and therefore, Mr. Kapanoske’s duties during his leave of absence would not include bargaining with the IBT on behalf of its employees. The IBT and the OPEIU reached agreement on permitting Mr. Kapanoske to take a leave of absence from the IBT to serve as staff representative for Local 2 of the OPEIU, which included that Mr. Kapanoske would not work on any IBT-related matters. On these terms, Mr. Kapanoske’s request for leave was granted and commenced on June 5, 1993.
Subsequently, the IBT insisted that the OPEIU honor the terms of its agreement regarding Mr. Kapanoske not working on IBT-related matters. On November 30, 1995, Michael Goodwin, OPEIU president wrote a letter to Dan Dyer, president of Local 2, addressing whether such an agreement had been reached with the IBT. In the letter, Mr. Goodwin writes:
During initial contract negotiations with the IBT, Local 2 requested the International to assist them in certain matters . . . One of the issues [late President John Kelly] was asked to work on was the pre-contract release of Kapanoske on a leave of absence to work for Local 2 . . . The IBT agreement was conditioned on the basis that George Kapanoske not be assigned to represent IBT employees. President Kelly agreed to this condition and George Kapanoske was, therefore, granted a pre-contract leave of absence. At the time of this agreement . . . President Kelly made me aware of its terms. The IBT insists that the OPEIU honor its obligations under this agreement.
Mr. Goodwin goes on to advise Mr. Dyer that the agreement is valid and Mr. Kapanoske is not assignable to IBT work. Thereafter, Mr. Goodwin writes, “For the record, I think it should be noted that the reason the IBT took this position is based on their suspicions that George Kapanoske has interfered with the internal political affairs of the IBT.” Mr. Goodwin notes the battle and election for IBT general president and affirmatively states that the OPEIU will not involve itself in IBT politics. He directs Mr. Dyer to “withdraw your reassignment of
George Kapanoske to represent IBT employees.”
James P. Hoffa
March 26, 1996
Page 1
Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) prohibits campaign contributions from the union. The term “campaign contribution” is broadly defined in the Rules to include “any direct or indirect contribution of money or other thing of value where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. . .” Rules, Definitions, 5.
In support of his position, the protester states that the November 30, 1995 letter from
Mr. Goodwin confirms that the IBT insisted that Mr. Kapanoske not be assigned to IBT work due to their suspicion of his involvement in the general president election. It is the actions of the IBT in November 1995 that forms the basis of Mr. Hoffa’s allegation. Mr. Hoffa argues that the IBT action in seeking to restrict Mr. Kapanoske, and the OPEIU’s acquiescence in these actions, violates the Rules.
The IBT contends that Mr. Goodwin’s letter is consistent with the 1993 agreement and their effort to insure enforcement of the agreement when Local 2 attempted to assign
Mr. Kapanoske to IBT work.[1]
The evidence supports the IBT’s claim that its efforts to restrict Mr. Kapanoske’s assignment was based on the original agreement made in 1993. This agreement authorizing the leave of absence for Mr. Kapanoske was executed in early 1993, long before anyone was a candidate for election. For there to be a violation of the Rules, “the protested conduct must be directed to a candidate.” Gilmartin, P-032-LU245-PNJ (December 12, 1995). The Election Officer has determined that Mr. Hoffa became a candidate in March 1994. Crawley, P-027-LU988-PNJ (August 23, 1995). Mr. Carey became a candidate in October 1994, some 18 months after the IBT granted Mr. Kapanoske’s leave of absence. See Martin, P-101-IBT-PNJ (August 17, 1995) (Decision on Remand). The IBT’s subsequent actions to enforce the 1993 agreement in 1995 does not constitute an improper campaign contribution.
For the foregoing reasons, 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:
James P. Hoffa
March 26, 1996
Page 1
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 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator
[1]On February 12, 1996, after the protest was filed, Local Union 2 OPEIU President Dan Dyer, wrote to Mr. Hoffa stating that the union does not involve itself in the internal political affairs of the IBT and strongly objects to Mr. Hoffa allegations.