Protest Decisions

              October 2, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Miguel Acosta

October 2, 1996

Page 1

Miguel Acosta

P.O. Box 391501

Mountain View, CA  94039

Ray Corrie, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 287

1452 N. 4th Street

San Jose, CA  95112

Lou Bittencourt

Teamsters Local Union 287

1452 N. 4th Street

San Jose, CA  95112

Miguel Acosta

October 2, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-961-LU287-CSF

Gentlemen:

Miguel Acosta, a member of Local Union 287, 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 on September 10, 1996, Ray Corrie, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 287, and Lou Bittencourt, a business agent for Local Union 287, showed a pro-Carey videotape of the IBT Convention, in violation of the Rules.  In addition, Mr. Acosta alleges that pro-Carey campaign stickers have appeared on the union building.

Mr. Corrie responds that a “home-made” video taken by a Local Union 287 member was shown after the meeting had formally ended.  Mr. Corrie also states that as soon as he sees or finds out about the presence of Carey stickers in the building he has them removed.

This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross.

Miguel Acosta

October 2, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer’s investigation revealed that on September 9, 1996, before the regular union meeting began, Jack Hampil, Local Union 287 recording secretary, requested permission to show a video of the IBT Convention.  Mr. Corrie states that he agreed to show the video after the meeting.  When the formal meeting concluded, but before members began leaving, Mr. Corrie told people that someone wanted to show a video.  Mr. Acosta objected to the showing of the video, saying that “people didn’t come to this meeting to be shown campaign tapes.”  Mr. Corrie responded that he thought that the tape was from the IBT.  Duane Meyers, president of the Local Union 287, corrected him, stating that it was a tape from the Carey campaign.  A discussion ensued during which Mr. Corrie states that he then said that the local union should not show the videotape, and that he advised Mr. Hampil of this.

Mr. Bittencourt, who was present at the meeting, then offered to show the tape that he had made at the IBT Convention.  Mr. Bittencourt attended the Convention as a guest and paid his own expenses.

Mr. Acosta told the Election Officer’s investigator that he objected to the showing of any videotapes at the meeting.  He confirmed that the tape shown at the meeting was

Mr. Bittencourt’s tape.

Mr. Acosta also alleged that there were Carey stickers on the windows at the local union hall.  He complained of this to Mr. Corrie at the meeting.  Mr. Corrie stated that he either personally removes or has someone remove any stickers he sees in the local union hall.  Mr. Acosta corroborated Mr. Corrie’s statement that the stickers had been removed.  He added that he had seen more stickers after the IBT Convention.  He was not sure if they had been taken down. 

1.              Allegation of Campaigning at Local Union Meeting

It is undisputed that Local Union 287 permitted Mr. Bittencourt to show his home-made video of the Convention after the September 9, 1996 general meeting.  The Election Officer’s representatives viewed the videotape.  It covered the Convention, showing short interviews of people at the Convention welcoming viewers to the Convention, showing the entrance to the Convention hall, the registration of delegates, and a shot of a big blue truck with the Teamsters’ emblem on the side.  Inside the Convention hall, the videotape showed views of the hall with people milling about, school children saying the pledge of allegiance and the singing of the American and Canadian national anthems.  The videotape covered many of the issues which were contested during the Convention, including disagreements between Hoffa and Carey supporters during the proceedings, scenes in which Ron Carey was both booed and cheered, and when Mr. Carey ejected the guests from the back of the Convention hall.  In addition, the videotape showed the main speakers, including the acceptance speeches of Messrs. Hoffa and Carey in their entirety.  The videotape is about one hour long. 

In the last minute and a half of the videotape, there is an interview of a first-time alternate delegate discussing his experience at the Convention, where he states, among other general statements about his experience at the Convention, “. . . I enjoyed it and I hope I can do it again in five years, hopefully we can get Ron Carey re-elected and we’ll be doing this again in five years.”

Miguel Acosta

October 2, 1996

Page 1

The Rules are designed to prevent campaigning at union membership meetings.  The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 5(a) read, in relevant part, as follows:

(3) The Local Union need not allot time for campaigning during any of its meetings.  However, if campaigning during such meetings is permitted, the Local Union shall notify all candidates for the positions for which such campaigning will be permitted of the opportunity to speak at least five (5) days prior to the meeting and shall divide the time equally between those candidates (or candidates’ credentialed representatives) who request an opportunity to speak.  The order of appearance shall be determined by lot.

(4) A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor of or against any candidate in conjunction with its meetings or otherwise.  This requirement shall apply not only to formal presentations by or on behalf of candidates but also to informal campaign activities, such as, for example, comments on candidates during meetings, literature distribution at meetings, literature distribution tables, etc.

By its terms, Article VIII, Section 5(a)(3) of the Rules applies while a local union meeting is taking place.  In this matter, however, Mr. Bittencourt’s videotape was shown after the general meeting had been adjourned, after there had been an extensive discussion as to whether the Carey campaign tape could be shown and after Mr. Bittencourt’s offer to show his tape.  By that time, many members had gotten up to get food and were milling about.  Therefore, the Election Officer finds that the meeting was over, for purposes of the Rules.[1] 

Events taking place in the meeting hall following a meeting, fall under the provisions of Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4) of the Rules, which apply to “meetings or otherwise.”  Thus, the question under the Rules is whether Local Union 287 “discriminate[d] or permit[ted] discrimination in favor of or against any candidate” when it permitted Mr. Bittencourt to show his Convention videotape.

Miguel Acosta

October 2, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer has recently examined a number of Convention reports, published by local unions, joint councils and the International, for campaign content under the section of the Rules that applies to union-financed publications.  Such publications may not “be used to support or attack any candidates or the candidacy of any person.”  Article VIII, Section 8(a).  See, e.g., Chalfant, P-882-JC28-PNW et seq. (September 6, 1996); Rodriguez, P-888-

LU630-CLA (September 6, 1996); Hoffa, P-871-IBT-EOH (September 13, 1996); Halberg,

P-900-LU174-PNW (September 18, 1996).

In those decisions, the Election Officer recognized that many aspects of the Convention were politically charged.  Many attendees openly displayed their political affiliation.  Energetic demonstrations of support for candidates were common, as were heated political debates.  A portion of the proceedings was devoted solely to the nominations of International officer candidates. 

Accordingly, the Election Officer has recognized that the unique circumstance of the Convention warrants latitude in the reporting of the politically-charged events that took place.  Upon review of Mr. Bittencourt’s videotape, the Election Officer finds that it falls well within the scope of Convention reporting approved in the matters cited above.

In the last few minutes of Mr. Bittencourt’s videotape, a delegate states his personal opinion that he hopes that Mr. Carey will be re-elected as IBT general president.  The delegate’s statement, while personal, could be construed by some members as an endorsement of Mr. Carey by the local union since it was shown at the local union hall.  In reviewing whether this statement should be construed as an endorsement, the Election Officer has looked to prior cases regarding Convention coverage in publications.  See Strysniewicz, P-931-LU995-CLA (September 25, 1996) (statements by alternate delegate that “Jimmy Hoffa will lead this Union into the 21st century” and “your concern should be in getting the most effective leader in office . . . and I believe JIMMY HOFFA JR. was able to show me leadership that I can believe in and would be willing to follow” constituted an endorsement); O’Connor, P-986-LU331-PNJ (September 24, 1996) (local union’s motion and vote to endorse a particular candidate constituted endorsement); Hoffa, P-954-LU463-EOH (September 23, 1996) (“The Board has also pledged support for Eastern Vice President John P. Morris” constituted endorsement).  The Election Officer recognizes that this videotape was not a union-financed publication and that the only partisan message appeared in the last minute of an hour-long tape.  However, the video was shown at the local union hall following a local union meeting.  It is important that local unions are not perceived as supporting a candidate in the International election.  Therefore, the Election Officer finds that a violation of the Rules occurred from the showing of this portion of the video.

2.              Allegation of Campaign Materials Being Posted at the Local Union Hall

Mr. Acosta claims that there were Carey campaign stickers posted at the union hall.  Mr. Corrie asserted that he removes or causes to be removed any stickers which he sees in the building.  Mr. Acosta corroborated Mr. Corrie’s statement in that the stickers which he had seen had been taken down.

Miguel Acosta

October 2, 1996

Page 1

In Willett, P-863-LU331-PNJ (August 16, 1996), the Election Officer found that “[a]ffixing campaign stickers and literature to the newly painted exterior of [a local union’s] hall was vandalism.”  The person or persons responsible for putting up the stickers in Local Union 287’s hall have not been identified and both parties admit that every effort is being made to take the stickers down as soon as they get put up.  Accordingly, the local union is not in violation of the Rules.  However, the local union should remain vigilant and immediately remove any such stickers that appear.

Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED as to the portion of the videotape noted above and DENIED in all other respects.

The Election Officer recognizes that members viewing Mr. Bittencourt’s videotape may have interpreted it as a local union endorsement of a candidate for International officer.  In order to ensure that members understand that the local union does not endorse any International officer candidate, the Election Officer orders the following:

1.  Within three (3) days of the receipt of this decision, Local Union 287 shall post the attached notice to members on all bulletin boards in the local union hall.

2.  Within seven (7) days of this decision, Local Union 287 shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer detailing its compliance with this order.

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

Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator

              NOTICE TO LOCAL UNION 287 MEMBERS

              FROM SECRETARY-TREASURER RAY CORRIE

After the adjournment of the September 10, 1996 local union meeting, the local union permitted the showing of a home-made videotape of the IBT Convention.  At the end of the tape there was an interview of an alternate delegate candidate who expressed his preference for a particular candidate.

The Election Rules do not permit local unions to endorse any candidates for International officer.

In order to correct any possible misunderstanding, Local Union 287 hereby states that it does not endorse any candidates in the International officer election.

_________________________________

Ray Corrie, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 287             

This is an official notice which must remain posted for 30 consecutive days and must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.

Approved by Barbara Zack Quindel, IBT Election Officer.