October 17, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
October 17, 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
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel 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
James P. Hoffa
October 17, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1009-IBT-CSF
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 James P. Hoffa, a member of Local Union 614 and a candidate for general president. Mr. Hoffa alleges that the IBT, General President Ron Carey, the Carey Campaign and Local Union 63 used union resources to hold a rally on behalf of Mr. Carey’s candidacy for general president.
Mr. Hoffa states that a September 22, 1996, rally in Whittier, California, while billed as an event to promote Teamster involvement in the 1996 U.S. elections, was actually a campaign rally to support Mr. Carey’s candidacy. Mr. Hoffa alleges that pro-Carey campaign parapher-nalia was sold, worn and distributed by IBT members and officers at and in close proximity to the event as well as before and during the event.
James P. Hoffa
October 17, 1996
Page 1
The IBT responds that while union resources were used to support the Whittier event, the expenditure supported legitimate union activities and had no campaign purposes. The IBT further states that Mr. Carey attended the event as general president of the union, not as a candidate, and that he did not campaign.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross.
It is undisputed by the parties that union resources paid for the Whittier event, which was sponsored by the IBT. At issue is whether campaigning occurred at the union-sponsored voter registration rally. During the investigation the IBT submitted, and the Election Officer reviewed, a videotape of the Whittier event. The video shows that campaign material supporting both Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Carey was posted and distributed in close proximity to the event but outside a marked no-campaign area at the perimeter of the rally area. A large truck carrying a sign with Ron Carey’s name posted on it is seen in a parking lot, as is a stand staffed by persons where Hoffa campaign material is being sold. A large banner supporting Mr. Hoffa is visible as are numerous persons wearing both pro-Carey and pro-Hoffa t-shirts and hats. Later, the videotape shows Mr. Carey waiting for the official event to commence with event security personnel. Numerous persons can be seen passing by and wearing t-shirts, pins, stickers and hats supporting Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Carey. A large banner beside the podium reads, “Teamster Vote,” and a banner hanging in front of the podium reads, “Register and Vote. It’s Your Job. It’s Your Future.” Mr. Carey is introduced on the stage by an unidentified person who states, among other things, that Mr. Carey is “one of us” and that he “stands up to greedy employers [and] corruption.” At least one person on the podium is wearing a Carey campaign hat. Before Carey speaks, cheers of “Carey,” “Hoffa,” “five more years” and “two more months” erupt.
Mr. Carey then speaks. He talks about the upcoming U.S. elections, corporate America and permanent replacement legislation. At the end of Mr. Carey’s speech, chants of “Carey” and counter-cheers of “Hoffa” are heard.
The Rules are designed to prevent campaigning at union meetings. Article VIII, Section 5(a) reads, in relevant part, that:
(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.
James P. Hoffa
October 17, 1996
Page 1
(4) A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor or against any candidate in conjunction with its meeting or otherwise. (Emphasis added.) 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 . . .
Article VIII, Section 5(a)(3) of the Rules, which sets out the notice requirements for campaigning during local union meeting, does not apply here. The event protested is not an official local union meeting. However, Section 5(a)(4) applies to local union “meetings or otherwise,” which includes rallies sponsored by the union to support union functions. It does not violate the equal-access provisions of the Rules for a candidate to attend such a function if campaigning does not take place. Carbone, P-887-LU313-PNW (September 12, 1996). Campaigning has been defined 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).
A similar union-sponsored event held in St. Louis was reviewed in Hoffa, P-925-IBT-MGN (September 20, 1996), aff’d, 96-Elec. App. 244 (KC) (October 3, 1996). The Election Appeals Master, affirming the Election Officer’s decision, stated that, “if campaigning in fact does not occur in either an official union meeting or an informal social gathering, no violation of the Rules occurs.” Noting that a “significant amount of campaigning occurred during a parade that preceded [the event] along the route leading to the [event] and in places contiguous to but not inside the designated [event] area,” the Election Appeals Master stated that
“Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules broadly entitles rank and file members to engage in campaign activities.”
The event protested here is nearly identical to the protested event in St. Louis. The placing of campaign signs, banners and the distribution of other campaign paraphernalia in the area leading to the central rally location by IBT members does not violate the Rules. In addition, the wearing of campaign hats and buttons does not constitute impermissible campaigning.
As stated in Hoffa, supra,
Under Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules, member union officers and employees “retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right . . . to openly support or oppose any candidate.” [. . .] Union officers, according to the [Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems] are permitted to wear campaign emblems so long as they are not representing the union before an unrelated third party.
Here, one member on the stage and several in the audience wore campaign paraphernalia supporting Carey. Others in the audience wore Hoffa paraphernalia. The wearing of campaign paraphernalia at the rally is permitted under the Rules.
At times during the program, audience members shouted slogans in support of
James P. Hoffa
October 17, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Carey and other audience members shouted slogans supporting Mr. Hoffa. The videotape shows that these demonstrations were spontaneous and neither led nor encouraged by IBT staffers or Mr. Carey.
As to the text of Mr. Carey’s remarks and the comments made by the individual introducing and speaking after Mr. Carey, the evidence shows that no campaigning occurred. The individual introducing Mr. Carey praised him in his capacity as general president and did not make reference to his candidacy. Mr. Carey’s remarks did not constitute campaigning.
In consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Hoffa’s 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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator