November 7, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Richard Hall
20320 S. Woodland
Spring Hill, KS 66085
Phil Young, President
Teamsters Local Union 41
4501 Van Brunt Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64130
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1146-LU41-EOH
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
Richard Hall, a member of Local Union 41. Mr. Hall alleges that the Fall 1996 issue of his local union’s publication, Local 41 News, contains campaign material in violation of the Rules.
Specifically, Mr. Hall contends that an article appearing on the second page of the publication entitled, “President’s Report: “Do Nothing” Convention Fails To Address Important Rank-and-File Issues,” written by Local Union 41 President Phil Young, supports the candidacy of James Hoffa, a member of Local Union 614 and a candidate for general president, while attacking the candidacy of Ron Carey, the incumbent general president and a candidate for reelection.
Election Office Staff Attorney Jonathan K. O’Neill investigated the protest.
Richard Hall
November 7, 1996
Page 1
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 al. (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.
In Martin, the Election Officer recognized that union officers and officials have a “right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office and to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern” (quoting Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
Pursuant to her authority under Article VIII, Section 8(e) of the Rules, the Election Officer reviewed the protested issue of Local 41 News prior to its publication. The Election Officer approved the content of the issue on September 25, 1996, finding that publication of the material would not constitute a violation of Article VIII, Sections 8(a) and 11(b)-(c) and
Article XII, Sections 1(b)(1) and (3) of the Rules.
The protested article occupies the entire second page of the Fall 1996 issue of Local 41 News. In the article, Mr. Young described the Convention as “a one-sided display of undemocratic leadership.” The article is critical of Mr. Carey as chairman of the Convention and accuses the “IBT leadership” of intentionally stalling Convention proceedings because they lacked a majority among the delegates.
Mr. Young also laments the “waste” of IBT resources at the Convention. Towards the end of the article, Mr. Young states:
Should we be angry? You bet we should! In the name of democracy, dictatorial tactics were used. Although some complain that all the media criticism is “unfounded,” the fact is that by refusing to allow a true floor debate, and by blocking action on important issues, the IBT has no one to blame but themselves.
The investigation revealed that the Fall 1996 issue of Local 41 News was the first issue of the publication printed after the Convention. Thus, the first opportunity to report Conven-tion proceedings to the membership occurred in the Fall 1996 issue.
The Election Officer acknowledges 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.
Richard Hall
November 7, 1996
Page 1
The International Convention is an event of significant interest to many IBT members. Informing members of the events of the Convention through union publications is a legitimate duty of local union, joint council or conference officers. Reporting on the proceedings at the Convention would be almost impossible without some reference to the nomination process, which was an integral part of the Convention, and without reference to one or more of the candidates. Moreover, Mr. Carey, as general president of the IBT, served as the chair of the Convention. This role focused a great deal of attention and interest on his actions. Generally, detailed coverage of Mr. Carey as Convention chair would not automatically violate the Rules.
In addition, a union-financed publication is not obligated to present all points of view concerning the conduct or outcome of the Convention. Similarly, a union-financed publication is not required to report on everything that occurred on the Convention floor. Such require-ments would effectively prohibit Convention coverage by union-financed publications by obligating journalists for such publications to report on every event, act or proceeding that occurred at the Convention. Such a requirement would not only create a near impossible task for such reporters, but would also intrude on their journalistic discretion. The Election Appeals Master has stated that “[A]bsent a political endorsement or attack, as established by the communication’s tone, content, and timing, the Election Rules do not empower me to intrude upon the journalistic process of a union publication.” In Re: Lamy, 95 - Elec.
App. - 53 (KC) (January 11, 1996). Moreover, the Election Officer has previously determined that “a union-financed communication does not violate the Rules because it fails to treat opposing ideas or opinions.” Volpe et al., P-828-IBT-MGN et seq. (July 11, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 218 (July 23, 1996).
Finally, union-financed publications may contain opinions of the manner in which the Convention was organized or managed, or the conduct of attendees, so long as such editorializing does not make a connection with the campaign or the International officer election. “Just as it is proper for incumbent Union officers to expend Union resources for the conduct of legitimate Union business, it is permissible for a Union member to criticize the manner in which the incumbent conducts such business.” Jacob, P-060-LU745-EOH
(July 21, 1995), remanded on other grounds, 95 - Elec. App. - 6 (KC) (August 14, 1995).
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).
The Election Officer has found that actions of the general president at the Convention are not only newsworthy, they invite comment. So long as such commentary does not establish a link to the election or campaign, and is limited to the performance of Mr. Carey’s office as general president or Convention chair, it does not violate the Rules.
While the tone and content of the protested article are highly critical of Mr. Carey and the current administration, it is permissible commentary on an event of enormous significance to IBT members. While the standard by which such reports becomes more stringent as the election approaches, the Election Officer determines that, even considering the proximity of the elections, the protested publication does not violate the Rules.
Richard Hall
November 7, 1996
Page 1
Accordingly, 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
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