September 16, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
September 16, 1996
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
John Sullivan, Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James P. Hoffa
September 16, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-943-IBT-MGN
Gentlemen:
James P. Hoffa, a member of Local Union 614 and candidate for general president, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that the IBT improperly used the September 26, 1996 edition of its official publication, the Teamster magazine, to oppose his candidacy and to support the candidacy of incumbent General President Ron Carey. Mr. Carey’s campaign organization is also named in the protest.
Mr. Hoffa specifically and exclusively objects to an “inset” displayed on page three of the publication captioned, “Out of Order.” The protester takes the position that this text and photograph attacks his candidacy “by blaming him or his supporters for pandemonium” which Mr. Hoffa contends was caused by Mr. Carey’s actions as presiding officer. Mr. Hoffa describes Mr. Carey’s actions as “dictatorial” and “undemocratic.”
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer.
James P. Hoffa
September 16, 1996
Page 1
The inset objected to by Mr. Hoffa is contained within a two-page feature entitled, “Fighting For The Future.” The boldface subtitle of the article reads “The Teamsters Convention took some historic steps to clean up corruption. But other reforms were blocked by disruptions on the Convention floor.”
The article is two pages in length. It begins by listing two measures which were adopted by the delegates, including a ban on members influenced by organized crime and a new code of ethics for the trustees of IBT pension and health funds. Certain other proposals are discussed which were not voted upon due to what the article describes as “disruptions.” These include improving strike benefits, prescribing standards of conduct for union officials, making the IBT Ethical Practices Committee a permanent part of the Constitution, eliminating references in the Constitution to the U.S. Area Conferences, giving local unions the right to decide whether to elect or appoint business agents, requiring a membership vote on local union mergers, and setting down rules for the next IBT Convention. A proposal that would have required elected union leaders be drawn from the rank and file and a decision to hold a special convention after the “International Union elections” are treated in the last two sections of the article.
At the bottom of the text, three photographs and captions are placed in a black background under the title “Fight For The Future.” The first photograph depicts delegate Larry McDonald and quotes him describing how his life was threatened after addressing the Convention body. The second photograph is of U.S. Senator Arlen Specter. The accompanying caption reports that Senator Specter was unable to speak because of disruptions on the floor of the Convention hall.
Mr. Hoffa objects to the third photograph which shows 14 persons, most of whom are wearing campaign paraphernalia supporting Mr. Hoffa. Some of the persons in the photograph have their arms raised. The caption reads:
OUT OF ORDER
Some Convention guests and alternate delegates left their seats, shouted down speakers, and took part in voice votes that were supposed to include delegates only.
As a result, President Carey had to clear the hall of all guests.
“We are not going to have a Convention that’s ruled by mob rule,” Carey vowed.
Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication may not be “used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.” In reviewing union-financed communications for improper campaign content, the Election Officer looks to the tone, content and timing of the publication. Martin, P-010-
IBT-PNJ et al. (August 17, 1995) (decision on remand), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). The Election Officer also considers the context in which the communication appeared. Chalfant, P-882-JC28-PNW et seq. (September 6, 1996); Rodriguez, P-888-LU630-CLA (September 6, 1996).
James P. Hoffa
September 16, 1996
Page 1
In Martin, the Election Officer recognized that the IBT may use its official publications to report on the legitimate business of the union and on the views and actions of union officers and officials with respect to that business:
Elected union officials are entitled to use union publications to express their views and to have their union activities reported in [union] publications. They are not ordinarily required to give space therein to the expression of contrary views . . . . So long as such coverage is addressed to the regular functions, policies and activities of such incumbents as officers involved in matters of interest to the membership and not as candidates for reelection, there is not a violation . . . .
(quoting Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979) (construing Section 401(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
Mr. Hoffa objects to this quoted portion of the article and the accompanying photograph on the sole ground that it attacks him by not placing the blame for these events where, in the opinion of Mr. Hoffa, it belongs: on Mr. Carey and his actions as presiding officer.
In Hoffa, P-870-PACONF-SCE (September 6, 1996), Mr. Hoffa objected to the
July 1996 IBT Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters’ Conference Report on precisely the same grounds. The Election Officer held as follows:
Mr. Hoffa, however, claims that, because Mr. Carey’s allegedly “undemocratic” and “dictatorial” conduct was not reported, the article supports Mr. Carey’s candidacy. However, as stated above, the Election Officer will not find a violation of the Rules because a union-financed publication did not publish one candidate’s views and opinions. The fact that Mr. Hoffa believes that the article in Conference Report does not portray the convention proceedings as he would or that it fails to report certain actions taken by Mr. Carey does not cause the protested articles to rise to the level of campaigning.
In Hoffa, P-871-IBT-EOH (September 13, 1996), the Election Officer considered the same photograph in the July 26, 1996 issue of the Teamster Leader. The decision reads, in pertinent part:
The Election Officer also does not find campaign content in the picture to which Mr. Harrington objects. That picture links the claims of disruption in the protested article to Mr. Hoffa’s supporters. The Election Officer recognizes, however, that
James P. Hoffa
September 16, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Hoffa’s supporters had a legitimate right at the Convention to oppose the initiatives of the IBT with which they disagreed. Mr. Hoffa characterizes the actions of his supporters in his protest, as “vigorously and vocally protest[ing] Carey’s undemocratic behavior.” It is that opposition which the photograph depicts. The actions of Mr. Hoffa’s supporters were distinct from their political support of Mr. Hoffa, as evidenced by their campaign vests, shirts and buttons. The Election Officer finds that the IBT is not precluded from reporting on or depicting opposition or disruption at the Convention because such opponents wore Hoffa campaign paraphernalia.
Neither the failure to report Mr. Hoffa’s views as to who was responsible for the disruption at the IBT Convention nor the protested photograph contained in the “Fighting For The Future” article in the September 1996 issue of the Teamster violate the Rules at
Article VIII, Section 8 (a).
Accordingly, 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, D.C. 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
William A. Wertheimer, Regional Coordinator