Protest Decisions

              October 17, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI  48098

Ken Mee

42356 Greenbrier Park Drive

Fremont, CA  94538

Bob Blanchet

3853 Dryden Road

Fremont, CA  94555

Ron Carey, General President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC  20001

David Montoya, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 748

1222 I Street

Modesto, CA  95354

Al Oliver

Teamsters Local Union 748

1222 I Street

Modesto, CA  95354

Arthur Hackworth

Consolidated Freightways

175 Linfeld Drive

Menlo Park, CA  94025

Jimmy Hammack, President

Teamsters Joint Council 38

1209 K Street

Modesto, CA  95354

Ralph Miranda

Teamsters Joint Council 38

1209 K Street

Modesto, CA  95354

Ron Carey Campaign

c/o Nathaniel K. Charny

Cohen, Weiss & Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY  10036

Bradley T. Raymond

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,

  Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.

32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI  48334

John Sullivan, Associate General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC  20001

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case Nos.               P-984-LU748-CSF

P-997-LU748-CSF

P-998-LU748-CSF

P-1000-LU748-CSF

Gentlemen:

Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by James P. Hoffa, a member of Local Union 614 and a candidate for general president,

Ken Mee, vice president for the Western Region of the IBT and a candidate for reelection, and Bob Blanchet, trustee of Local Union 287.  Because of the related natures of these protests, they were consolidated for decision by the Election Officer.

In P-984-LU748-CSF, Mr. Hoffa alleges that a union-financed rally, ostensibly to promote voter registration for IBT members, held in Modesto, California on September 21, 1996, was actually a campaign function to support the candidacy of Ron Carey, the incumbent general president, in violation of the Rules.  To support this allegation, Mr. Hoffa points to a number of actions taken by event organizers and Carey supporters present at the rally.  These actions will be addressed individually below.

In P-997-LU748-CSF, Messrs. Mee and Blanchet allege that a Hoffa campaign van parked outside of the Modesto rally bore a bumper sticker displaying an employer insignia of Consolidated Freightways (“CF”), thus implying “some type of endorsement of the Hoffa slate” by CF.  The protesters also allege that Hoffa supporters violated the Rules by distributing and wearing pro-Hoffa clothing inside a rally enclosure designated as a no-campaigning zone.

In P-998-LU748-CSF, Messrs. Mee and Blanchet allege that Hoffa supporters who attended the Modesto rally used the offices of Joint Council 38 as a base from which they campaigned, in violation of the Rules.

In P-1000-LU748-CSF, Mr. Blanchet alleges that, prior to the Modesto rally,

Al Oliver, a business agent for Local Union 748, told a restauranteur, whose business is located across the street from the site of the rally, that there would be violence at the rally.  Mr. Blanchet also alleges that literature in support of Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy was placed in the offices of Local Union 748 for distribution without a similar opportunity extended to

Mr. Carey, in violation of the Rules.  Finally, Mr. Blanchet alleges that a flyer in support of Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy was transmitted via facsimile to an unspecified number of recipients from a Local Union 748 fax machine, in violation of the Rules.

Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross investigated the protest.

I.              Allegations of Mr. Hoffa

A.              Campaigning During Phone Banking

Mr. Hoffa alleges that a union-financed phone bank operation to solicit attendance at the voter registration rally was used by the Carey campaign for political purposes.  Specifically, Mr. Hoffa contends that at least two members of Local Union 386 received telephone calls in which they were invited to the voter registration rally and then an individual who identified himself as Ron Carey joined in the call and urged the members to vote for him. 

The IBT denies that the phone bank was used for campaign purposes and denies that Mr. Carey participated in any of the calls. 

The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(c), strictly prohibit the use of union resources in campaigning.  The Rules otherwise permit campaigning by any member of the IBT if there is no utilization of union resources and if the member is not campaigning during his or her work hours. 

Mr. Hoffa provided two witnesses to support this allegation.  The first, Larry Clarke, a member of Local Union 386, states that he received a call at his home on September 20, 1996.  Mr. Clarke, who admits to having a blurred memory of the event, states that a woman on the phone introduced herself as calling from the “Teamsters” and then told him the “Ron Carey organization” was having a voter registration “dinner.”  According to Mr. Clarke, after he told the woman he would be unable to attend, she asked him to hold and then a man came on the line.  Mr. Clarke believes this man was Mr. Carey.  The man asked if Mr. Clarke and his family would be able to attend the rally.  Mr. Clarke responded negatively and stated that his workplace supports Mr. Hoffa.  Mr. Clarke states that the man finished the conversation by stating, “OK, the main thing is to get out there and vote.”

During the investigation, the IBT provided a script used by phone bank workers that indicates members were invited to the rally and told “Ron Carey will be speaking.”  The IBT denies that any phone bank worker referred to the rally as sponsored by the “Ron Carey organization.”  Mr. Clarke admits that his recollection of the call is not perfect and states that the woman he spoke to originally identified herself as from the “Teamsters.”  Based on these facts, the Election Officer finds the record insufficient to indicate that the caller stated that the “Ron Carey organization” was sponsoring the event.

No other aspect of the conversation, as related by Mr. Clarke, violates the Rules.  Even if the second individual on the phone was Mr. Carey, which the IBT denies, Mr. Clarke fails to indicate that the speaker campaigned in any way.  The second speaker merely asked Mr. Clarke if he would be able to attend and stated that it was important to vote.  While

Mr. Clarke states that he took this to be a reference to the International officer election, he admits that the caller made no reference to the election or the campaign of any individual.

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

The second witness was Mario Puppo, also a member of Local Union 386.  When questioned, Mr. Puppo had a vague recollection of receiving a telephone call from someone who asked him to come to the rally, but he denied speaking to a second individual during the call.  He stated that no one asked him to vote or referenced any matter except his attendance at the “picnic.”

This evidence does not establish a violation of the Rules.

B.              Campaigning or Tolerance for Campaigning by Event Officials

The following allegations involve incidents and actions that occurred at the voter registration rally held on September 21, 1996 in Modesto, California.  The event was sponsored and funded by the IBT and was supervised by IBT employees Colleen Dougher and Joe Henry.  Mr. Blanchet was in charge of security.  The event also employed rank and file members of Local Union 748 as volunteers.  The rally took place within a cordoned area.  Food and drinks were available, and event workers staffed tables at which attendees could register to vote.  The center of the rally area was filled with tables and chairs for the attendees.  The seats faced a stage where speakers addressed the audience.  A tractor-trailer emblazoned with the Teamsters name and logo formed the backdrop of the stage.  At the entrances to the cordoned area, event organizers positioned signs that read “Welcome Teamsters Families.  No Campaigning Beyond This Point.” A number of witnesses offered by Mr. Hoffa contend that event coordinators either participated in pro-Carey campaigning or permitted or encouraged members of the audience to do so.

The Rules are designed to prevent campaigning at union membership meetings. 

Article VIII, Section 5(a) reads, 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 the 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 or against any candidate in conjunction with its meeting or otherwise.  This requirement shall apply not only to formal presentations by or on behalf of candidates but also informal campaign activities, such as, for example, comments on candidates during meetings . . .

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

Article VIII, Section 5(a)(3) of the Rules, which sets out the notice requirements for campaigning during local union meetings, does not apply to informal social gatherings.  However, Section 5(a)(4) applies to local union “meetings or otherwise,” which includes social gatherings.  It does not violate the equal access provisions of the Rules for a candidate to attend a local union meeting or function if campaigning does not take place.  Carbone,

P-887-LU313-PNW (September 12, 1996).

Campaigning has been defined by the Election Officer as “advocacy for or against a candidate.”  Giacumbo et al., P-001-IBT-PNJ et seq., (September 29, 1995), aff’d in relevant part, 95 - Elec. App. - 32 (KC) (November 1, 1995); See also Caffrey, P-047-JC16-NYC (October 19, 1995).  The banner to which the protester objects welcomed General President Carey in that capacity and did not make reference to his candidacy.

1.              Presence of Carey Campaign Insignia Inside the “No Campaigning” Area

Mr. Hoffa provided a witness, Robert Kirkpatrick, who describes himself as the West Coast Hoffa campaign coordinator.  Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that he observed people wearing Carey campaign shirts on top of the truck used as a backdrop for the stage.  Messrs. Hoffa and Kirkpatrick acknowledge that rally attendees could wear paraphernalia displaying their support for a candidate, but argue that event organizers, who controlled who stood where, should not have allowed anyone wearing pro-Carey clothing to stand atop the truck in the most visible location at the rally.[1]

The investigation revealed that at least one individual wearing a pro-Carey shirt stood atop the truck.  The investigation disclosed no evidence to indicate that event organizers instructed or even specifically allowed individuals wearing Carey paraphernalia to stand atop the truck.  Without such evidence, the Election Officer will not find the presence of this individual to violate the Rules.

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

Witnesses also state that pro-Carey signs were posted on a utility pole behind the food preparation area on the perimeter of the cordoned area.  Mr. Kirkpatrick and Ralph Miranda, an employee of Joint Council 28, state that they approached a member of the event security detail, whom they later learned was Marty Averette, a business agent of Local Union 856, and requested that he remove the signs.  The witnesses state that Mr. Averette had someone remove the signs.  Mr. Miranda states that the sign reappeared at the same place a few moments later.  Mr. Kirkpatrick made no mention of the reappearance of the signs.  No other witnesses reported seeing signs in the “no-campaigning” area.

This evidence indicates an effort on the part of the event staff to police the no-campaigning zone.  The witnesses agree that the campaign material was removed when it was brought to Mr. Averette’s attention.  There is no evidence to indicate that event staff posted the material or sanctioned the posting of such material in violation of the Rules.

The protester also alleges that a truck rented by the union to transport equipment for the event was used to transport Carey campaign signs.  The witness provided by the protester states that he believes that these signs were identical to the campaign signs posted on the utility pole.  The witness, however, states that his view of the signs was obstructed and that he could not make out any specific campaign language on them.  In the absence of more compelling evidence, the Election Officer does not find that the event organizers transported Carey campaign signs in violation of the Rules.

2.              Positioning of Carey Supporters

Mr. Hoffa alleges that event coordinators intentionally positioned Carey supporters in the front of the audience and on the flanks of the stage as part of their plan to convert the voter registration rally into a campaign event, in violation of the Rules.  Mr. Kirkpatrick states that he observed a woman wearing a Carey shirt speak into a walkie-talkie about moving Carey supporters to the two front rows of chairs before the stage.  According to Mr. Kirkpatrick, he saw this woman speak to Carey supporters, including one seated in the third row whom she urged to move forward.  Before and after Mr. Carey’s speech, the individuals moved to the front of the audience participated in an enthusiastic demonstration of support for Mr. Carey.  This demonstration included chanting.  At the conclusion of Mr. Carey’s speech, many of the supporters took up the patently campaign-related chant of “Five more years!”

Patricia Marshall, wife of a member of Local Union 439 member and a rally attendee, states that she sat near the front of the audience while her husband went to get a Hoffa shirt.  She states that while she waited for his return, she observed a woman speak into a radio and say something about needing to fill up the front seats.  Several minutes later, Ms. Marshall observed between 25 and 30 people wearing pro-Carey paraphernalia walk over and sit in most of the seats in the front two rows.

Jane Fleck, a member of Local Union 748, states that she witnessed Jeanette Favalero, another member of Local Union 748, direct individuals wearing pro-Carey paraphernalia to the front rows of seats.  The investigation revealed that Ms. Favalero volunteered to work at the event, but the IBT denies that she had been assigned any specific duties at the event.

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

Ms. Favalero, who describes her duties at the rally as those of a “sergeant-at-arms,” states that prior to the start of the speeches, she reported to Ms. Dougher and Mr. Henry that Hoffa people were “moving in” or taking seats towards the front.  According to Ms. Favalero, she discussed with Ms. Dougher and Mr. Henry the need to get as many people wearing pro-Carey shirts up front “in case cameras were there.”

The IBT argues that because of concern for Mr. Carey’s safety, a large number of staff and volunteers were moved up to the front of the rally and directed to come up to the stage area after Mr. Carey was finished speaking to protect him.  The investigation has shown that a large portion of the individuals moved to the front of the rally wore insignia indicating their support of Mr. Carey’s candidacy and that these individuals participated in campaign-related chanting in support of Mr. Carey.  While the IBT argues their presence was needed for security concerns, the fact remains that they also campaigned in a body and were provided the opportunity to do so by the IBT.  The actions of these individuals does not comport with the “security related claims” of the IBT.  Their presence and location, determined by the event coordinators who are paid employees of the IBT, contributed to Mr. Carey’s candidacy. 

This evidence indicates a concerted effort by the event organizers, or those under the supervision of the event organizers, to discriminate in favor of attendees according to political affiliation and to create campaign support during the speeches at an IBT-financed event.  Such activity advances Mr. Carey’s candidacy, in violation of the Rules.

3.              Leading of Political Chants by Event Staff

Mr. Hoffa alleges that members of the event staff led campaign chants with bullhorns provided by the IBT.  The investigation also revealed that Ms. Favalero and Sylvia Chavis, a member of Local Union 748 and a volunteer worker at the rally, were provided with bullhorns by Ward Allen, an IBT staff person working on the voter registration project.  The IBT claims that Mr. Allen brought three bullhorns to the event on his own initiative and not at the direction of event organizers.  According to the IBT, the bullhorns are not owned by the union.  The IBT admits that Ms. Dougher gave a bullhorn to Ms. Favalero, but states that

Ms. Favalero was advised not to use the bullhorn for campaign chants or other political purposes.  The IBT denies that Ms. Favalero had any official role at the event.

The investigation indicates that Mmes. Favalero and Chavis led pro-Carey chants with bullhorns before and after Mr. Carey’s speech.  As a result, it is the determination of the Election Officer that event staff with bullhorns provided by IBT personnel led political chants at a union-financed rally, in violation of the Rules.

D.              Event Officials Refused Offer to Assist with Security and Voter Registration

The investigation revealed that, several hours before the event began, Hoffa campaign workers offered to assist the event organizers with security for the rally.  Mr. Kirkpatrick also states that around 6:00 p.m., members wearing pro-Hoffa paraphernalia attempted to assist at the voter registration tables.  In both cases, the event organizers declined the offer of assistance.

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

The IBT argues that this refusal of the offers of assistance does not violate the Rules.  The IBT has the authority to choose its staff and volunteers for a union-financed event.  The refusals, therefore, represent legitimate staffing decision by the IBT and do not, therefore, violate the Rules.

E.              Statements by Local Union 856 Business Agent

Mr. Kirkpatrick states that at approximately 4:30 p.m., Mr. Averette came up to him and asked, “What are you doing here, this is a Carey event?”  Even crediting Mr. Kirkpatrick’s account, the Election Officer fails to see how Mr. Averette’s words violated the Rules in any fashion which would warrant a remedy.  Mr. Kirkpatrick was not prevented from attending the rally.  The alleged statement constitutes speech the Election Officer will not censor unless it had the effect of violating the Rules.  There is no evidence that the alleged statement did so.

F.              Booing and Cheering

Mr. Kirkpatrick claims that, prior to the event, he and Mr. Blanchet met to establish “ground rules” and that Mr. Blanchet told him that the no-campaigning rule would extend to booing and cheering speakers on the stage.  He states that the behavior of the crowd violated this agreement.

Such a contention fails to allege a violation of the Rules.  While the Election Officer has determined that event organizers violated the Rules by leading such demonstrations, the violation of an alleged pre-agreement with Mr. Blanchet does not constitute a separate Rules violation.

G.              Pro-Carey Campaigning at Event Entrance

The protester alleges that rally attendees were forced to run a “gauntlet” of Carey campaigners at the entrance of the event just outside the no-campaigning zone.  The protester does not contend that this activity took place anywhere but outside the area where the official IBT program was located.  The fact that campaigning took place outside the event does not automatically violate the Rules.  See Hoffa, P-925-IBT-MGN (September 20, 1996), aff’d,

96 - Elec. App. - 244 (KC) (October 3, 1996).

The Carey supporters may have secured a better position in which to address individuals entering or leaving the event, but there is no evidence to indicate that Hoffa supporters were prevented from campaigning in such areas by any factor other than that the Carey supporters got there first.  The time and place of the event was publicly advertised in advance, so both groups had an opportunity to establish a position from which they could campaign.  The position of the Carey supporters who campaigned outside the rally does not, therefore, violate the Rules.

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

H.              Content of Speeches

Mr. Hoffa alleges that comments made by speaker Floyd Weaver, a Stockton, California City Councilman, and Mr. Carey constituted campaigning at a union-financed event for which equal access must be granted to opposing candidates.  Since no such access was granted, Mr. Hoffa alleges that the IBT violated the Rules.

The investigation revealed that at the beginning and end of his speech Councilman Weaver cried “Five more years.”  The IBT does not deny that this statement was a reference to Mr. Carey’s candidacy, but states that Mr. Weaver was not a scheduled speaker and that his words constitute “transparent pandering” to the crowd, many of whom were chanting the same slogan.  The IBT contends that Mr. Weaver’s statements should not be attributed to the IBT or the event organizers.  The event organizers, however, allowed Mr. Weaver to speak at the union-financed event and are thus responsible for his remarks.  There is no evidence that

Mr. Weaver’s choice of words was directed by or in any way pre-arranged by the Carey campaign or the IBT.  Nevertheless, it is language that advocates the election of a candidate, used at a location and an event at which no campaigning may take place unless a similar opportunity is made equally available to other candidates.  As such, it was out of place and inappropriate at this otherwise legitimate union function.  See Hoffa, P-925-IBT-MGN (September 20, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 244 (October 3, 1996).

In In Re: Ranita, 96 - Elec. App. - 130 (KC) (March 20, 1996), citing his decision in In Re: Hoffa, 95 - Elec. App. - 28 (KC) (October 26, 1995), the Election Appeals Master stated that “no campaign speeches, scripted or spontaneous, tacked on the end of an otherwise legitimate business speech communicated to an assemblage of rank and file members are permissible.”  In campaign speech cases, the subjective evaluation of “such matters as substance, placement and relative length” of disputed remarks should bear only on the issue of remedy.  Thus, Mr. Weaver’s campaign statements, in the absence of comparable access granted to the Hoffa campaign, constitute a violation of the Rules.

Mr. Hoffa also objects to a portion of Mr. Carey’s speech in which he states “I need your help, I need your help in November.”  Mr. Hoffa contends that this statement is a request for support for Mr. Carey’s candidacy in the International officer election.  The IBT responds that the remark made by Mr. Carey has been quoted out of context and does not amount to an impermissible reference to the International officer election.

The investigation revealed that Mr. Carey made the protested statement which triggered applause and chanting from the audience.  After the applause died down, he continued on to say, “We have to take those who oppose our right to strike and permanently replace them!”  The statement, taken as a whole without the audience interruption, clearly indicates that

Mr. Carey refers to the November 5 national elections and not the International officer election.  Mr. Carey’s protested statement, therefore, does not violate the Rules.

The investigation also disclosed that Mr. Mee, who spoke at the event, was introduced by Billy Deal, president of Local Union 748.  During this introduction, Mr. Deal stated,

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

“Ken Mee ran for one purpose for International Union vice president on the Ron Carey slate in 1991; Ken Mee was dedicated to wiping out the last vestiges of corruption in our International Union.” 

Mr. Deal references the last election while evoking the anti-corruption campaign theme of the current Carey slate and mentioning the name of the slate.  The IBT states that

Mr. Deal’s comments constitute a legitimate introduction of a union official to an audience who may not know much about the speaker.  But Mr. Deal’s introduction was more than a mere recitation of Mr. Mee’s history with the union or his accomplishments.  Mr. Deal specifically referenced the prior election in a manner that implies a continuation of his candidacy in the present election as an anti-corruption reformer.  Such comments are not necessary to an introduction at a union-financed voter registration rally where candidates have not been provided equal access.  The introduction, therefore, amounts to campaigning, in violation of the Rules.

I.              Positioning of Pennsylvania Conference Truck the Night before the Rally

Mr. Hoffa alleges that the night before the rally, an IBT-emblazoned tractor-trailer and a large billboard supporting Mr. Carey’s candidacy were positioned side-by-side, facing outward from the parking lot of a hotel so as to be visible from the freeway.  Mr. Hoffa contends that this constitutes the use of a union resource, the huge tractor-trailer, to draw attention to the smaller Carey display.

The investigation revealed that the night before the rally, the tractor-trailer, owned and operated by the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters, was parked in the lot of a Holiday Inn in the Modesto area.  The truck is decorated with a large IBT logo and the word “TEAMSTERS,” but no campaign material.  The truck had been intentionally positioned to be visible from the freeway.  Later, Mr. Mee arrived at the same hotel, where he would spend the night prior to the rally.  Mr. Mee often campaigns for the Carey campaign, so he travels in a truck that hauls a trailer upon which is a large billboard in support of Mr. Carey and the Carey campaign.  When Mr. Mee arrived at the hotel, he also wished to position his trailer so that it would be visible from the freeway.  In order to do this, he parked his trailer in line with the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters truck.

Both Mr. Mee and the IBT state that the vehicles were independently parked as they were so that passing Teamsters would see them.  The IBT denies any collusion between

Mr. Mee and the event coordinators concerning the positions of the billboard and the truck.  The IBT states that the two vehicles were parked approximately 60 feet apart.

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

Ms. Fleck states that she drove by the hotel that night and witnessed the two vehicles parked “one after another.”  Even if the IBT’s estimated distance between the two vehicles is incorrect, there is no evidence of collusion between Mr. Mee and the event organizers.  The parking lot was open to hotel guests and Mr. Mee was free to park his trailer wherever hotel staff would permit.  Just like the driver of the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters truck, Mr. Mee wished his billboard to be visible from the freeway, so he parked it nearby.  This evidence does not indicate impermissible collusion or the contribution of anything of value to Mr. Carey’s campaign by a union entity, in violation of the Rules.

II.              Allegations of Messrs. Mee and Blanchet

A.              The CF Bumper Sticker

The protesters allege that a CF sticker was displayed on the back of a vehicle decorated with signs supporting Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy.  The vehicle was parked outside of the voter registration rally.  The protesters contend that such a display creates an impermissible impression of an endorsement of the Hoffa campaign by CF.

The investigation revealed that the protested vehicle is owned by Mr. Kirkpatrick. 

Mr. Kirkpatrick states that he has been employed by CF for 25 years and that employees at his work site place such stickers on their vehicles so that agents of the employer can identify employee vehicles, which may be left for several days on the employer’s lot when a driver is on a long trip.  A representative of CF confirmed this practice.

Mr. Kirkpatrick has a reasonable explanation for the presence of the sticker on his personal vehicle.  It is not a violation of the Rules.

B.              Distribution of Hoffa Paraphernalia During the Rally

Messrs. Mee and Blanchet contend that Hoffa supporters passed out pro-Hoffa items inside the no-campaigning zone, in violation of the Rules.  Messrs. Blanchet and Allen and Ms. Favalero all state that they witnessed individuals passing out Hoffa material inside the rally area.  Mr. Marshall admits that he had a box of Hoffa literature with him inside the cordoned area, although he contends that he meant to take the literature to distribute at his workplace.  This evidence indicates that some level of campaign activity took place in the no-campaigning zone.  Mr. Blanchet states that after he confronted the individual he witnessed passing out the paraphernalia, the individual left the rally area.  Mr. Blanchet states that he witnessed no further violations of the no-campaigning policy after the individual left.

These facts indicate that the event security staff, led by Mr. Blanchet, had to take steps to end campaign activity in the rally area.  Such an allegation is comparable to Mr. Hoffa’s contention that pro-Carey material was displayed on a utility pole at the perimeter of the no-campaigning zone.  When the display on the pole was brought to the attention of the event staff, it was removed.  In the present allegation, the event staff were able to quickly end the campaign activities of the Hoffa supporter or supporters distributing paraphernalia.  As a result, no violation of the Rules occurred.

C.              Use of Joint Council 38 Facilities by Hoffa Supporters

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

The Modesto rally was staged in the street in front of Local Union 748’s hall.  The offices of Joint Council 38 are near those of the local union.  Messrs. Blanchet and Allen state that when they walked over to the joint council’s offices on the afternoon before the rally to give Hoffa campaign organizer copies of the event rules, and a second time to discuss the Hoffa supporters’ proposal to form a joint security force, they witnessed Messrs. Kirkpatrick and Miranda, Bob Diaz and other Hoffa supporters, all wearing pro-Hoffa clothing, using the joint council’s hall, facilities and parking lot.  Messrs. Blanchet and Allen state that they observed between six and 12 Hoffa supporters inside the joint council building prior to the event.

The protesters allege that Hoffa supporters used the joint council facilities as a “staging area” for campaign activities they participated in at the rally, in violation of the Rules.  They presented no evidence, however, that joint council facilities were used to facilitate the campaigning efforts of the Hoffa supporters.  Mr. Miranda, who is employed by the joint council, states that his secretary opened the hall around 2:00 p.m. to receive voter registration materials that Mr. Miranda had requested.  He states that the Hoffa supporters had agreed to meet at the joint council building to plan strategy, but conducted their discussions outside of the building.  He states that he went inside to retrieve the registration materials and other members of his group entered the building to get water or to use the restrooms.

The protesters were unable to provide a specific allegation concerning the use of the facilities to assist campaign activities.  Their contentions allege a general use of the building by the Hoffa supporters.  This evidence demonstrates nothing more than that rally attendees who were Hoffa supporters met at the joint council building prior to the rally.  There is no evidence to indicate that they campaigned at the facility or that they used joint council resources to campaign later at the rally.  Their mere presence at the joint council hall with Hoffa paraphernalia did not violate the Rules. 

D.              Threats Made to Restauranteur

Messrs. Blanchet and Deal state that Al Oliver, a staff member of Local Union 748, attempted to sabotage the rally by convincing the owner of a restaurant near the rally site that the event would turn violent.  The protesters contend that Mr. Oliver’s alleged interference with the rally is a violation of the Rules.  The Election Officer notes that the threat of interference with the organization of an IBT voter registration rally, if substantiated, falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Election Officer.  Because this alleged statement was related to the anticipated campaigning coinciding with the rally, the Election Officer investigated the protester’s contention. 

During the course of the investigation, Mark Smallwood, the restaurant owner, denies that he was ever warned of potential violence by Mr. Oliver.  Mr. Smallwood states that

Mr. Oliver asked for permission to park Hoffa vehicles in Mr. Smallwood’s parking lot.  This request led to a discussion in which Mr. Smallwood learned, for the first time, that supporters of candidates for International office planned to campaign outside of the rally.

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

E.              Pro-Hoffa Leaflet Present at Local Union 748 Offices for Distribution

Mr. Blanchet alleges that a campaign flyer supporting Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy was present for distribution in Local Union 748’s offices without a similar opportunity available for pro-Carey literature.  Mr. Blanchet has provided no evidence to support this allegation.

F.              Transmission of Campaign Material from Local Union 748 Fax Machine

Mr. Blanchet alleges that a pro-Hoffa flyer was transmitted via facsimile from the local union, to persons unknown, for distribution to members.  He asserts that the use of a union fax machine for this purpose constitutes a violation of the Rules.

David Montoya, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 748, admits that his secretary, Kathy Garcia, faxed a leaflet to Mike Williams, a steward at Tri-Valley, urging Hoffa supporters to wear their “colors” and attend the Modesto rally.  Mr. Montoya states that

Ms. Garcia used the local union’s fax machine.  Mr. Williams admits to receiving the flyer on his employer’s fax machine and posting it at his work site.

Mr. Hoffa argues that the flyer was not campaign-related and merely encourages attendance at the event.  The Election Officer has previously reviewed this flyer and has determined that it is campaign literature in support of Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy as defined by the Rules.  See Blanchet, P-989-LU386-CSF (October 11, 1996).

Accordingly, it is the determination of the Election Officer that local union and employer resources were used to disseminate campaign material, in violation of the Rules.

In each of their protests, Messrs. Mee and/or Blanchet contend that the violations they allege are part of a “systematic routine” of violations used by the Hoffa campaign to escape the restrictions of the Rules.  The protesters provided no evidence of this alleged pattern other than the allegations leveled and a reference to Joint Council 7, which is not a party to any of these protests.

III.              Remedy

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.

A.              Violations by the Modesto Rally Organizers

Messrs. Deal and Weaver made campaign statements supporting the candidacy of

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Mee and Mr. Carey, respectively, at an inappropriate time and place.  As in Ranita, supra, and Hoffa, supra, the remarks which violated the Rules were short.  The forum was a rally to provide voter education to IBT members from throughout Joint Council 38.  The event itself was hosted by Local Union 748. 

The Election Officer understands that in fashioning a remedy, she cannot replicate the Modesto rally.  In order to reach the target population of that rally with a similar benefit for Mr. Hoffa, the Election Officer will make use of meetings held by the local unions within Joint Council 38.  In these circumstances, the Election Officer orders the following:

1.  Within three (3) days of receipt of this decision, Mr. Hoffa will provide to the IBT a one-sided piece of campaign literature printed in black ink on 8½11-inch paper.

2.  Within two (2) days of receipt of such literature from Mr. Hoffa, the IBT shall make fifty (50) photocopies of this literature for each local union within Joint Council 38 and shall send such literature by overnight mail to each such local union.  These packages shall contain a cover sheet stating, “This literature is provided to your local union in compliance with the Election Officer’s decision in P-984.”

3.  Within two (2) days of sending the literature to the local unions, the IBT shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer detailing its compliance with the above portions of this remedy.

4.   At the next local union membership meeting for each of the local unions within Joint Council 38, the local union officer presiding at the meeting shall read aloud the attached “Notice to Members of Local Unions within Joint Council 38.”  The local union officer shall designate a place within the local union meeting room where the campaign literature supporting Mr. Hoffa is made available to be picked up after the meeting.

5.  Within two (2) days of the membership meeting, each local union within Joint Council 38 shall separately file an affidavit with the Election Officer detailing its compliance with this order.

B.              Violations by Local Union

Mr. Montoya admitted that his secretary used union resources to fax literature to a work site.  The Election Officer has determined that this literature constitutes campaigning, as defined by the Rules.  As a result, the Election Officer directs the following remedy:

              1.  Mr. Montoya and Local Union 748 shall cease and desist from utilizing local union resources, union funds or other things of value, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual.

2.  Within three (3) days of receipt of this decision, Mr. Montoya shall pay Local Union 748 the amount of $5 to cover the cost of the use of the fax machine and phone line and the time of his secretary who sent the fax to his campaign headquarters.

James P. Hoffa et al.

October 17, 1996

Page 1

3.  Within three (3) days of receipt of this decision, Mr. Montoya shall pay Tri-Valley $2.50 for the use of its fax machine and phone line.

4.  Within five (5) days of receipt of this decision, Mr. Montoya shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer detailing his compliance with the above remedy.

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

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

Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator

All Local Unions within Joint Council 38

NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF ALL LOCAL UNIONS

WITHIN JOINT COUNCIL 38

The Election Officer has determined that at an IBT-sponsored voter registration rally held on September 21, 1996 in Modesto, California, the Election Rules were violated when portions of this event were used to campaign for Mr. Carey.

The Election Rules prohibit campaigning at a union-financed event.  When the campaigning mentioned above occurred, the IBT violated the Election Rules.  To remedy this violation, the Election Officer has ordered each local union within Joint Council 38 to read this notice to its members and to make available for distribution campaign literature supporting James P. Hoffa, candidate for general president, to each local union, copied at IBT expense.  Copies of such literature are available for pick-up after the meeting at (designate location in meeting room).