September 27, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
David Shipley
September 27, 1996
Page 1
David Shipley, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 695
1314 N. Stoughton Road
Madison, WI 53714
Jerry Husgens
Teamsters Local Union 610
1401 Hampton Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63139
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
David Shipley
September 27, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-978-LU610-NCE
Gentlemen:
David Shipley, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 695, 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 Local Union 610 Business Representa-tive Jerry Husgens violated the Rules when he mailed campaign materials to Local Union 695 Business Representative Ruth Ann Stodola using Local Union 610 stationery, an envelope and the postage meter. Mr. Shipley also alleges that Local Union 610 resources may have been used to produce the campaign materials and that the campaign materials may have been widely disseminated.
Mr. Husgens admits that he mailed several copies of a campaign flyer to Ms. Stodola on September 10, 1996 using Local Union 610 stationery, a Joint Council 13 envelope and the Local Union 610 postage meter, but he states that neither local union nor joint council resources were used to produce or photocopy the campaign materials. Mr. Husgens further states that no other flyers were distributed using local union or joint council resources.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith Kuhn.
David Shipley
September 27, 1996
Page 1
On August 10, 1996, Mr. Husgens placed several copies of an anti-Hoffa flyer in a Local Union 610 envelope, and mailed them to Ms. Stodola. He used the Local Union 610 postage meter. Enclosed with the flyers was a note, handwritten on Teamster Joint Council 13 stationery, which stated, “Ruth Ann, It took some time to refine. The enclosed are for your use. Also if you have any pictures from the Convention, let me know. J.H.” The flyers were not printed on paper bearing the union’s name, insignia or other mark identifying the union.
Mr. Husgens states that the mailing stemmed from a conversation he had with
Ms. Stodola at the IBT Convention about creating such a flyer, and that it was not part of any larger campaign mailing. He states that the flyer was produced and printed by his son and a friend using a personal computer and that no local union or joint council resources were used.
Mr. Husgens states that he sent Ms. Stodola the flyer only because she expressed interest in it at the Convention, and that the mailing to Ms. Stodola was the only time local union resources were used in connection with the flyer. Mr. Husgens states that he is willing to reimburse the local union for the cost of its postage and stationery and to take whatever other action is necessary.
Ms. Stodola corroborates Mr. Husgens’ account. She never received the flyers, which were confiscated by Mr. Shipley upon delivery on September 13, 1996. However, she acknowledges that she and Mr. Husgens had discussed the possibility of Mr. Husgens creating such a flyer, and she assumed the mailing was a follow-up on their discussion.
Mr. Shipley states that he has no evidence to support his allegation that the flyers were sent to persons other than Ms. Stodola, and he has produced no evidence to support his allegation that local union or joint council resources were used in their production.
Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) provides that,
No Union funds or other things of value shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual. Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigns unless the Union is compensated at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are advised in advance, in writing of the availability of such assistance. The use of the Union’s official stationery with the Union’s name, insignia or other mark identifying the Union is prohibited irrespective of compensation or access.
The Election Officer finds that Mr. Husgens violated the Rules when he used local union and joint council stationery and local union postage to mail campaign flyers and a campaign-related letter to Ms. Stodola. It is undisputed that he did not offer equal access to such resources, as required by the Rules. Further, the Rules’ prohibition on using local union
David Shipley
September 27, 1996
Page 1
stationery is specific and without qualification. See Hoffa, P-771-LU705-CHI, (May 31, 1996).
Mr. Shipley has not offered and the investigation has not revealed any evidence that union resources were used in the production or printing of the flyers or in a general mailing.
For the reasons stated above, the protest is GRANTED as to Mr. Husgens’ use of local union and joint council stationery and local union postage, and DENIED in all other respects.
When the Election Officer determines that 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 nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
Here, the Election Officer orders that the following steps be taken:
1. The Election Officer orders Mr. Husgens to cease and desist from using local union or joint council stationery and postage when sending correspondence having campaign content.
2. Within three (3) days of receipt of this decision, the Election Officer orders
Mr. Husgens to reimburse Local Union 610 the sum of five dollars ($5.00).
3. Within two (2) days of making the payment to Local Union 610 as set forth above, Mr. Husgens is directed to submit to the Election Officer an affidavit describing his compliance with the Election Officer’s order, attaching a copy of his check to Local Union 610.
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, 1996).
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
David Shipley
September 27, 1996
Page 1
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