June 5, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Bradley Yeakel
June 5, 1996
Page 1
Bradley N. Yeakel
620 N. Jefferson Street
Allentown, PA 18102
Philip M. DePietro, President
Teamsters Local Union 773
1345 Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18102
William J. Hontz, Vice President
Teamsters Local Union 773
1345 Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18102
Gail G. Brown
Teamsters Local Union 773
1345 Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18102
Ronald Schmoll
Teamsters Local Union 773
1345 Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18102
Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
Bradley Yeakel
June 5, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-762-LU773-PNJ
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Bradley Yeakel, a member of Local Union 773. Mr. Yeakel alleges that Philip DePietro, William Hontz,
Gail Brown and Ronald Schmoll, Jr., officers of Local Union 773 and successful candidates in the local union’s election of delegates and alternate delegates, displayed “various campaign paraphernalia,” including hats, brochures and bumper stickers, in their offices at the local union hall, in violation of the Rules.
The charged parties concede that they have kept campaign related material in their offices, but defend these practices by stating that since, as IBT members, they can wear campaign paraphernalia, they can have hats in their offices or store such materials without violating the Rules.
Bradley Yeakel
June 5, 1996
Page 1
Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr. investigated the protest.
Article VIII, Section 11(c) of the Rules states, in relevant part:
Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigning unless the Union is reimbursed at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are notified in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance.
The Election Officer has interpreted this section of the Rules to indicate that the display of campaign related material in private offices on union premises is an impermissible use of union facilities in order to campaign and a violation of the Rules. See Yeakel, P-256-LU773-PNJ, P-257-LU773-PNJ (January 4, 1996), aff’d 96 - Elec. App. - 57 (January 23, 1996). In Yeakel, the Election Officer found that the use of a wall in the local union’s secretary-treasurer’s office to post campaign-related photographs was a use of union resources prohibited by the Rules.
During the investigation, Messrs. DePietro and Hontz admitted that they have Carey hats in their offices as part of permanent displays of memorabilia. These hats are not present in the offices for personal use, nor or they worn on a regular basis. Rather, they form a campaign-related part of a larger display that has no other functional purpose. The charged parties contend that any campaign-related hat intentionally on display in an office was part of a larger collection of hats that reference a wide range of Teamster functions such as local union campaigns and organizing drives. The charged parties also contend that, since the wearing of campaign hats inside the local union hall is not forbidden by the Rules, then the display of such hats is, likewise, not prohibited. They admit that the protested hats which bear Ron Carey logos have since been removed from the offices.
The charged parties’ contentions are without merit. Regardless of the context of the overall display, if the content of part of the display is campaign-related, the display violates the Rules. The charged parties’ comparison between that the right to display campaign-related material and to wear it is also not relevant to this analysis. Use of union resources to display campaign material in a union facility is distinguishable from campaign paraphernalia worn by members visiting or working in such a facility because the Election Officer has determined that, with limited exceptions, members have the personal right to wear such paraphernalia. The fact that campaign-related material on display in a union facility is capable of being worn does not alter the fact that its display amounts to an impermissible use of a union facility under the Rules.
Bradley Yeakel
June 5, 1996
Page 1
Finally, the charged parties contend that the display of pro-Carey paraphernalia in the union offices does not violate the Rules because “there is an ample display of Hoffa campaign stickers” on the local union property or nearby. Specifically, they refer to stickers on a pole in the parking lot, on the back of a sign at the edge of the parking lot, and on a dumpster in the parking lot of a Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) hall next door. The charged parties state that the local union officers have not removed the stickers because they are sure that Hoffa supporters will simply put up new ones. Even assuming the equal access provisions of the Rules were so implicated, access provided to all candidates must be qualitatively equal. Thus, had the charged parties provided display space in their offices for pro-Hoffa campaign hats, this argument might have some merit. In the present case, however, the charged parties cannot argue that stickers in the parking lot, that remain at their own sufferance, provide access to the facility in any qualitatively comparable way to the hats being displayed in the offices of the president and vice president of the local union.
Therefore, the hats on display in the offices of Messrs. DePietro and Hontz constitute an impermissible use of union resources and, thus, violate the Rules.
Mr. Yeakel contends that hats and other paraphernalia displayed bearing the name “New Working Teamsters” refers to the delegate election and, therefore, also violates the Rules. The charged parties respond that during the delegate election their slate was the “Working Teamsters” and the items which bear the logo “New Working Teamsters” refers to the local union officers election. As to the protester’s allegations concerning other forms of campaign-related material, the charged parties state that all four officers charged in this protest recall, “at one time or another,” storing small quantities of campaign materials such as brochures or bumper stickers in their offices, but that these items were never on display. They argue that storage of such material in an office is incidental to union business and does not violate the Rules and that no such material has been stored in the offices for at least a month prior to the protest. They claim that the protest is untimely as a result.
The Election Officer accepts the charged parties’ arguments concerning the “New Working Teamsters” hats and concerning the storage of other campaign material. The “New Working Teamsters” paraphernalia displayed clearly relates to the 1994 local union officers election. Such a display does not violate the Rules. In addition, the protester has offered insufficient evidence as to when other materials such as bumper stickers and brochures were kept in the offices. The charged parties state that the storage of such material ended a significant amount of time prior to the filing of this protest. The allegations concerning this storage are, thus, untimely, under Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules.
As a result, the protest is GRANTED in respect to the pro-Carey campaign hats and DENIED in all other respects.
When the Election Officer finds the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
Bradley Yeakel
June 5, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer notes that the pro-Carey hats have since been removed from the relevant offices. She also notes that the displays found to be a violation in this case were small, and observable only by those who entered the offices, which were not generally open to the public. Taking these facts into consideration, she hereby orders that the protested officers of Local Union 773 cease and desist from the use of union facilities or resources to display the hats or any other campaign related material.
An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1966).
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
Peter V. Marks, Sr., Regional Coordinator