Protest Decisions

              April 3, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

James Hoffa

April 3, 1996

Page 1

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098

Gary Clark

270 Kerry Lane

Highland, MI 48357

Teamsters for a Democratic Union

c/o Ken Paff

7437 Michigan Avenue

Detroit, MI 48210

Bradley Raymond

32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

Diana Kilmury, Vice President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters 2612 E. 47th Avenue

Vancouver, BC V5S 1C1

Paul Alan Levy

Public Citizen Litigation Group

1600 20th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

James Hoffa

April 3, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-634-LU243-SCE

Gentlepersons:

This 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.  The protester alleges that International Vice President

Diana Kilmury and Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”) supported the candidacy of Gary Clark, a member of Local Union 243, in violation of the Rules.

James Hoffa

April 3, 1996

Page 1

Specifically, Mr. Hoffa alleges that TDU has in its possession membership information which it was ordered to return to the Election Officer[1] and that this information and the resources of TDU have been used to call members of Local Union 243 as part of campaign efforts for Mr. Clark.  The protester contends that TDU’s ability to make such telephone calls indicates that it has failed to comply with the Election Officer’s order in Cipriani.

Mr. Clark responds that he received a list of local union members’ phone numbers from the campaign organization of Ron Carey.  Ken Paff, representing TDU, responds that he allowed Mr. Clark to use TDU facilities to telephone members for campaign purposes.  He states that he did not provide Mr. Clark with membership information.  He further states that he charged Mr. Clark $200 for the use of TDU facilities.  It is Mr. Paff’s belief that the monetary compensation TDU received for allowing Mr. Clark to use its office and phones was above fair-market value for such services.

Ms. Kilmury responds that she had no involvement with Mr. Clark’s campaign efforts or his use of membership data.

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.

The investigation revealed that on March 15, 1996, Mr. Clark received a list of names and phone numbers of Local Union 243 members from Laura E. Phillips, an agent of

Mr. Carey’s campaign organization.  On March 17, 1996, Mr. Clark and supporters of his slate went to the headquarters of TDU where they used this list to call members of Local Union 243 for campaign purposes.  There is no evidence that TDU employees were involved in Mr. Clark’s campaigning efforts or that any agent of TDU had access to the membership list which Mr. Clark brought with him.  Mr. Clark paid TDU $200 for the use of its facilities.  When he left the premises, he took the membership list with him.

According to the Election Officer’s decision in Cipriani, delegate candidates may receive membership data from accredited candidates for International office for use in their campaigns.  Id.  As a result, the manner in which Mr. Clark received the membership data he requested does not violate the Rules.

Further, there is no evidence that Mr. Clark misused the membership list with which he was provided.  While he did take the list to TDU headquarters, he did so with the intention of using it to campaign for his slate.  TDU’s agents did not have access to the list nor were they given a copy.  The list was removed from TDU’s premises when Mr. Clark completed his campaign activities there.  The protester has provided evidence that members of the local union received telephone calls in support of Mr. Clark’s slate made from TDU’s office.  Such a use of the membership list does not violate the Rules.

Likewise, TDU, as a political caucus funded by union members, may make campaign contributions in accordance with Article XII, Section 1(b)(5) of the Rules.  See Halberg,

P-019-LU174-PNW, et seq. (December 14, 1995) (decision on remand).  As a result, even if Mr. Clark had not compensated TDU for the use of its facilities, TDU’s assistance would not violate the Rules unless it had access to membership data in contravention of the Election Officer’s decision in Cipriani.  As stated above, no such access was granted.  As a result, TDU’s compensated assistance of Mr. Clark’s campaigning efforts does not violate the Rules.

James Hoffa

April 3, 1996

Page 1

The protester also asserts that Mr. Clark’s campaign efforts at TDU’s office has left TDU in possession of the same information it was ordered to return in Cipriani.  Mr. Hoffa suggests that since Mr. Clark and his supporters conducted their phone-banking activities from TDU phones and because many of these calls were long distance, TDU will now be able to cull through its phone bill, use “commercial sources” to match the numbers to names and, thus, reconstruct a list of phone numbers for the membership of Local Union 243.  Such an application of the Rules and the Cipriani decision is, however, contrary to the intent of the Rules.  The protester would have the Election Officer adopt a standard so narrow that it would prohibit phone-banking at any facility or with the use of any phone whose records might be available to individuals who might be able to resurrect a membership phone list and might use this list for improper purposes.  In such a case, members could not conduct phone-banking activities at reimbursed joint councils, other labor organizations, employer-owned facilities, fraternal organizations or any other telephone banks whose usage records lay outside of a candidate’s control.  The Election Officer will not adopt a standard that would have such an effect on the ability of rank and file members to campaign.

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:

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