Protest Decisions

              May 22, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Thomas Ryan

May 22, 1996

Page 1

Thomas Ryan

535 E. Girard Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19123

Ron Carey, General President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

John P. Morris, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 115

2833 Cottman Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19149

John Sullivan, Associate General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Thomas Ryan

May 22, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-751-IBT-SCE

Gentlemen:

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

Thomas Ryan, a member of Local Union 107.  Mr. Ryan alleges that General President

Ron Carey and Vice President John Morris improperly used union resources to produce, print and distribute campaign literature.  Mr. Ryan also alleges that the campaign literature is inaccurate and slanderous.

Specifically, the protester alleges that a series of campaign flyers entitled, “Hoffa scam: The truth about the Hoffa ‘96 Campaign,” which do not state by whom they were produced, were nevertheless produced by Mr. Carey and/or Mr. Morris using resources from

Thomas Ryan

May 22, 1996

Page 1

Local Union 115, Joint Council 53 and/or the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters.[1]  In the absence of evidence establishing who actually produced the flyers, Mr. Ryan argues that the decision in Pratt, P-649-LU966-NYC, aff’d 96 - Elec. App. - 168 (April 15, 1996) imposes strict liability on Messrs. Carey and Morris for the receipt of improper contributions from the flyers  “whether or not solicited, and whether or not specifically known.”  Id.

Responding on behalf of Mr. Carey and Mr. Morris as International officers, the IBT denies that union resources were utilized to produce the campaign flyers.  The IBT also denies that any factual basis exists linking the campaign literature to Mr. Carey or Mr. Morris.

This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.

The protested flyer, headlined, “Hoffa scam” and subtitled, “JR. PHIZZLES OUT IN PHILLY,” is dated April 1996.  The flyer attacks the candidacies of Mr. Ryan for International vice president and James P. Hoffa for general president.  The flyer calls

Mr. Ryan, president of Local Union 107,  a “playboy” and criticizes his use of Local

Union 107’s resources.  Mr. Hoffa, referred to as “Junior” throughout the flyer, is criticized for allegedly campaigning while being paid as an administrative assistant for Joint Council 43.  The flyer states that both Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hoffa “want to turn back the clock to the corruption-ridden days of [James R.] Hoffa.”  The flyer ends with the refrain, “KEEP THE UNION STRAIGHT--VOTE THE CAREY SLATE.”  Nothing on the flyer’s face identifies the individual(s) responsible for its production.

Several additional “Hoffa scam” flyers were submitted to the Election Officer.  All refer to Mr. Hoffa, supporters and candidates on his slate in a derogatory manner.    

Article XII, Sections 1(b)(1) and (3) of the Rules prohibit a union from using its funds “to promote the candidacy of any individual.”  The Rules define campaign contribution broadly to include any direct or indirect contribution where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence the election of a candidate.  Rules, Definitions, 5. 

Article XII, Sections 1(a) and 1(b)(1) of the Rules prohibit an employer from making any campaign contributions to the campaign of a candidate for delegate or International office.  The Rules define “employer” to include “any individual, corporation, trust, organization or other entity that employs another, paying monetary or other compensation in exchange for that individual’s services.”  Rules, Definitions, 17.

Thomas Ryan

May 22, 1996

Page 1

As an initial matter, there is no dispute that the protested flyers are campaign literature.  They make repeated references to the 1996 International officer and delegate campaigns, as well as urge support and opposition to various candidates.  It is well-established, however, that the Rules “neither prohibit nor regulate the content of campaign literature.”  Rogers, P-518- LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991).  “The goal to be protected is free speech.”  Newhouse,

P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996).  See Landwehr, P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995); Braxton, P-304-LU623-PHL (May 21, 1991) (“The model for free and fair Union elections is that of partisan political elections . . . The cardinal principle is that the best remedy for untrue speech is more free speech, with the electorate being the final arbiter.”) Thus, the protester’s argument that the literature is slanderous does not state a violation of the Rules.

The sole evidence to support the protester’s allegation of an improper campaign contribution is a comparison made by the protester of a letter dated October 30, 1995 and authored by Mr. Morris, to the campaign flyers.  Mr. Ryan argues that the flyers attacking Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy reflect “Mr. Morris’ unmistakable style” as exhibited by his “frequent use of scatological references.”  Comparing the documents, the Election Officer does not find that the writing style in the flyers reflects that of Mr. Morris’.  Moreover, the Election Officer’s investigation uncovered no evidence connecting any of the individuals alleged to have connections with the flyers or establishing that union resources were utilized in their production. 

The Election Officer finds the holding in Pratt inappropriate.  Before a candidate can be held strictly liable for a violation of the Rules, as stated in Pratt, the evidence must establish that a Rules violation has occurred.  Here, the evidence does not establish that any violation has occurred.  Thus, the strict liability is not at issue here.

Finally, Mr. Ryan questions the “massive loophole” in the Rules which, according to the protester, permits anonymous campaign literature to go unregulated.  It is argued that this “loophole” permits “certain candidates and their supporters to avoid and frustrate compliance with the other restrictions set forth in the Rules and federal law.”  Mr. Ryan suggests that this case “should be a vehicle for either amending the Rules or at least issuing a Campaign Advisory.”   Hearings on the Rules were held by the Election Officer between January and February 1995, and written comments regarding the proposed Rules from members were received by the Election Officer through March 15, 1995.  Thus, the time to alter the Rules in regard to the regulation of anonymous campaign literature, even if such were advisable, has passed.  Further, while the Election Officer “retains the authority to interpret, to enforce and, when necessary, to amend the Rules,” Article I, she finds that existing rules pertaining to the use of union resources and prohibiting improper campaign contributions regulate the conduct alleged in this protest.

In consideration of the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.

Thomas Ryan

May 22, 1996

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 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