Protest Decisions

              June 11, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Thomas Ryan

June 11, 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

Robert Baptiste

Baptiste & Wilder, P.C.

1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036

Thomas Ryan

June 11, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-789-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 International Vice President John Morris improperly used union resources to produce, print and distribute a campaign literature.

Specifically, the protester alleges that an anonymous campaign flyer entitled, “Hoffa scam: The truth about the Hoffa ‘96 Campaign,” and subtitled, “LIKE FATHER--LIKE SON,” was produced by Mr. Carey and/or Mr. Morris using resources from Local

Thomas Ryan

June 11, 1996

Page 1

Union 115, Joint Council 53 and/or the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters.[1]  The flyer is dated May 1996.

Responding on behalf of Messrs. Carey and Morris as International officers, the IBT denies that union resources were utilized to produce the campaign flyers.

This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.

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.

Mr. Ryan’s allegations are related to a different flyer, but are otherwise identical to those he filed in Ryan, P-751-IBT-SCE (May 22, 1996) (appeal pending).  Mr. Ryan submitted other flyers to the Election Officer during the investigation.  There, the Election Officer found that the evidence submitted by the protester was insufficient to support a Rules violation.  She stated:

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. 

Thomas Ryan

June 11, 1996

Page 1

In this protest, Mr. Ryan reiterates his claim that the flyers were authored by

Mr. Morris.  In support, he submits campaign documents purportedly written by Mr. Morris during the 1991 IBT election cycle, as well as portions of an oral deposition taken of

Mr. Morris pertaining to the dissolution of IBT Area Conferences.  The protester claims that a comparison of these documents and the speech of Morris to the flyers in question, reveals his authorship of the flyers.  The Election Officer has reviewed these documents and finds the style of the flyers, in some respects, is similar to the speech of Mr. Morris.  The Election Officer notes, however, that similar styles and vitriolic language is contained in many of the anonymous campaign flyers which have been reviewed by this office, both for and against Messrs. Hoffa and Carey.

Moreover, even accepting the protester’s allegations that Mr. Morris authored the “Hoffa Scam” campaign flyers, there is no violation of the Rules because Mr. Ryan has failed to point to any evidence that union resources were used in the production or distribution of the flyers.  Unless there is a violation of the Rules pertaining to the use of union resources or improper campaign contributions, the Election Officer will not regulate the content of campaign propaganda.

In consideration of the foregoing, 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