October 30, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Garnet Zimmerman
October 30, 1996
Page 1
Garnet Zimmerman, President
Teamsters Local Union 31
1 Grosvenor Square
Delta, BC V3M 5S1
Louis Lacroix, President
Teamsters Canada
2540 Daniel Johnson, Suite 804
Laval, Quebec H7T 2S3
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel K. Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
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
Garnet Zimmerman
October 30, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1091-IBT-CAN
Gentlemen:
Garnet Zimmerman, a member of Local Union 31 and a candidate for International vice president, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that General President Ron Carey and Teamsters Canada President Louis Lacroix violated the Rules by sending out a campaign letter, at the expense of the IBT, less than one month prior to the sending of ballots in the International officer election. Mr. Carey is a candidate for reelection. Mr. Lacroix’s nomination for Teamsters Canada president was unopposed at the IBT Convention. Therefore, he was declared elected at that time.
Garnet Zimmerman
October 30, 1996
Page 1
In his protest, Mr. Zimmerman alleges that the tone, timing and content of the letter render it campaign material. He alleges that Messrs. Carey and Lacroix are “misusing this Union communication to campaign on behalf of members of their slate.”
The IBT responds that the letter concerned legitimate union business, was not campaign material and was sent two months after the IBT Convention.
Regional Coordinator Gwen K. Randall investigated this protest.
The investigation revealed that the letter in question was dated September 13, 1996 and addressed to Teamster Members from General President Ron Carey and Teamsters Canada President Louis Lacroix. It begins, “Many Canadian Teamsters have asked about the status of the Canadian Sovereignty Amendment to the Teamsters International Constitution.” It notes that Teamsters Canada and the International both agreed to the amendment last year and that it was scheduled for approval at the IBT Convention in July. It further states what the Canadian sovereignty amendment generally entails.
The letter continues by stating that action was not taken on the sovereignty agreement at the IBT Convention because “disruptions by some delegates and guests blocked the International Convention from taking action on this Amendment and many other important reforms.” The letter does not mention the persons responsible for the claimed disruption. It then discusses measures approved at the IBT Convention, which the letter claims promotes Canadian sovereignty.
The letter ends with the statement that a special convention will be held next year after the elections are over and closes with an appeal to members to watch a video, shown at the IBT Convention and sent to stewards, which “explain[s] the need for the Canadian Sovereignty Amendment.”
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 seq. (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).
In Martin, the Election Officer stated that:
Garnet Zimmerman
October 30, 1996
Page 1
[a]n otherwise acceptable communication may be considered campaigning if it goes on to make a connection with the election or election process, if it involves excessive direct or indirect personal attacks on candidates, or, alternatively, involves lavish praise of candidates. Otherwise legitimate coverage of the activities of a union official running for office may constitute campaigning if it is excessive.
Mr. Zimmerman alleges that the content of the letter renders it campaign material. The Election Officer has previously found that discussion of the Canadian sovereignty amendment, in and of itself, does not constitute campaigning. Hoffa, P-733-IBT-SCE (May 1, 1996) (Canadian sovereignty is an issue of legitimate concern to members). Mr. Zimmerman suggests in his protest, however, that the issue of Canadian sovereignty will be very important to Canadian voters in the International officer election. The protester alleges that because there is campaign literature circulating which establishes that the Carey campaign supports passage of the Canadian sovereignty amendment, and that the Hoffa campaign is against it, this letter is “nothing less than an overt statement of support for the Carey slate in Canada and a thinly veiled attack on the Hoffa slate.”
The Election Officer has acknowledged that distinguishing between coverage addressed to the regular functions, policies and activities of incumbents as officers, as opposed to campaigning, is naturally complicated by the fact that “policy issues within the union are frequently adopted as campaign issues in the campaigns of the International officers.” Szymanski, CONV-9-IBT et seq. (July 16, 1996); Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (August 16, 1996). See Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ (decision on remand) (August 17, 1995) (recognizing parallel debates within union on “how the IBT should prepare for the future in light of the institutional changes wrought by the Consent Decree and the changes in the national economy” and on “what individuals and groups within the union will hold power over the next four years”).
As the Election Officer observed in Rodriguez:
If [adoption of IBT positions by incumbent candidates] turned their job performance into campaigning, then incumbents would be required to stop acting on any such union business or risk an improper expenditure of union time and resources. If that fact turned criticism of incumbent performance into campaigning, then legitimate debate within the union would be stifled. The Rules require no such results if the distinction is maintained between an incumbent’s roles as union officer and election candidate.
Garnet Zimmerman
October 30, 1996
Page 1
By Mr. Zimmerman’s assertion, the issue of the Canadian sovereignty amendment is one with which many Canadian Teamsters are concerned. The sovereignty amendment was scheduled to be approved at the IBT Convention, but was not. It will presumably be part of the business discussed at a special convention following the International officer election.[1] It is not unreasonable for the IBT to find it necessary to communicate its position on the amendment. The Election Officer finds that addressing the issue of the Canadian sovereignty amendment is a legitimate function of Mr. Carey as general president and Mr. Lacroix as president of Teamsters Canada and does not constitute improper campaigning.
Mr. Zimmerman points out that the letter does not acknowledge opposing viewpoints, stating, “[n]otably absent is any criticism of the Amendment or any reference to the Amendment’s opponents.”
In Martin, however, 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. Martin states that:
[e]lected 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)).
The Election Officer finds that Messrs. Carey and Lacroix are not required to cover opposing views in their communications to members.
Mr. Zimmerman alleges that Messrs. Carey and Lacroix “misrepresent the Union’s current state of constitutional affairs when they promise that ‘A Special Convention will be held next year after this year’s International elections are over.’” The Election Officer notes that the General Executive Board (“GEB”) voted to convene a special convention after the International officer election. Mr. Zimmerman disagrees with the GEB’s decision and states that the special convention “may happen. It may not.” The possibility that the GEB may change its decision after the International officer election does not convert an IBT notice to members about the currently scheduled special convention into campaigning.
Finally, Mr. Zimmerman further alleges that the tone of the letter is partisan and value-laden. Particularly, Mr. Zimmerman objects to the use of the words “unfortunately” (referring to the disruptions at the IBT Convention), the promise of a special convention to deal with the issue, the expression of “hope” that the amendment will be passed, and the conclusion that passage of the amendment would result in a “stronger and more united union.”
Garnet Zimmerman
October 30, 1996
Page 1
The tone of the letter must also be examined in order to determine the propriety of the communication in the context of the International officer election. The Election Officer recognizes that “a publication or communication may convey support or opposition to a candidate even if overt campaign material is not present.” Rodriguez. The tone of the communication may be enough to convey support.
In this matter, the Election Officer finds that the somewhat critical tone expressed by Messrs. Carey and Lacroix in their communication when stating, “[u]nfortunately, disruptions by some delegates] and guests blocked the International Convention from taking action on this Amendment . . .,” is not campaigning, but is the type of reporting and editorializing previously permitted in union-financed publications. The Election Officer likewise finds that the expression of “hope” that the sovereignty amendment will pass and that it will result in a “stronger and more united union” does not constitute support for or opposition to any candidate. Therefore, the Election Officer finds that the tone of the letter does not rise to the level of campaigning.
In analyzing union-financed communications, the issue of timing becomes more important as the International officer election approaches. Mr. Zimmerman states that he received the letter on October 10, 1996. He further states that sending the letter at the end of October, when ballots will be sent to members in less than a month, makes it suspect. The IBT responds that the letter was mailed on September 13, 1996. The Election Officer credits both parties in that the letter was mailed on September 13, 1996 and was received by
Mr. Zimmerman on October 10, 1996. The Election Officer finds that, standing alone, the timing of the letter does not convert the letter into improper campaign material.
Based upon the foregoing, 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
Garnet Zimmerman
October 30, 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
Gwen K. Randall, Regional Coordinator
[1]The letter references the holding of a special convention after the elections in “a less political climate.” This is the only mention of the International officer election in the letter. The letter does not mention any candidates.