November 11, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
November 11, 1996
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel K. Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Hunter’s Point Steel
2903 Hunter’s Point
Long Island City, NY 11101
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James P. Hoffa
November 11, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1150-IBT-NYC
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, against General President Ron Carey, the Carey campaign and Hunter’s Point Steel (“Hunter’s” or “employer”), an employer of IBT members represented by Local Union 810. The protester alleges that several very large signs supporting Mr. Carey’s candidacy were affixed to the outside of the employer’s building in Long Island City, New York, in violation of the Rules.
The Carey campaign responds that it supplied the signs to an employee of Hunter’s, at the employee’s request, with the instruction that the employees would have to pay the employer the fair market value of the “advertising space” on the outside of the building prior to hanging the signs. The campaign further states that it directed the employees to remove the signs when it learned that such payment had not been made.
James P. Hoffa
November 11, 1996
Page 1
Hunter’s responds that the employees offered to pay for the advertising space, but it declined to accept such payment, as it has never “rented” space on the outside of its building. The employer states that it did not realize displaying the Carey signs on its building was prohibited by the Rules and removed the signs immediately when contacted by the Election Officer.
New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt investigated this protest.
The protester submitted photographs to the Election Officer which show several large pro-Carey signs hanging from the Hunter’s building in Long Island City. The Carey campaign admits that it supplied the signs, which measure 48 feet, to a Hunter’s employee, at his request.
Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules states as follows:
No employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution.
While the Rules protect the ability of members to support candidates of their own choosing, that protection does not extend to affixing campaign material to property that belongs to an employer.[1] As the Election Officer stated in Phelan, P-711-LU550-NYC
(April 23, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 184 (KC) (May 6, 1996), “[t]he Rules protect campaigning as a personal right of IBT members and require that it be exercised that way.”
In a series of recent cases, the Election Officer held that affixing campaign material to employer-owned trucks constitutes an improper campaign contribution on the part of the employer, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules. See, e.g., Feeley, P-874-LU817-MGN (September 17, 1996); Maney, P-956-IATSE-NYC et seq. (October 2, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 251 (KC) (October 15, 1996); Knox, P-1006-SFD-MGN (October 14, 1996); Sweeney, P-1058-LU807-NYC (October 28, 1996).[2] In these cases, the Election Officer further stated that placing campaign material on an employer’s truck “can also create a false impression of employer endorsement, which would be another form of improper campaign contribution.”
James P. Hoffa
November 11, 1996
Page 1
Furthermore, under Article XII, Section 1(b)(9) of the Rules, International officer candidates “are strictly liable to insure that each contribution received is permitted under the Rules.” Therefore, affixing campaign material to an employer’s property results in a violation of the Rules on the part of the candidate who the member intends to support.
In the instant case, the Carey campaign admits that it supplied the signs to an employee of Hunter’s with the knowledge that the employee intended to hang the signs from the Hunter’s building. This action on the part of the campaign violates the Rules. Furthermore, the campaign’s advice that the employee could compensate the employer for use of its outside space is incorrect, as Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules does not allow for such payment.[3]
With respect to Hunter’s, the employer states that it did not realize allowing the signs to be placed on the outside of its building violated the Rules. The instant protest was received by the Election Officer on October 30, 1996. When contacted by the Election Officer’s representative the following day, the employer agreed to remove the signs immediately and to notify its employees that no campaign materials would be permitted on the building or any other employer-owned property. The signs were removed on November 1, 1996. As the Election Officer has recently stated, “Immediate removal ends any potential impact of the improper campaigning.” Hoffman, P-1050-LU817-NYC (October 28, 1996); Sweeney,
P-1029-RCS-NYC et seq. (October 28, 1996); Aguilar, P-1080-LU848-CLA (October 31, 1996); Hoffa, P-1048-LU572-CLA (November 1, 1996).
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is RESOLVED with respect to Hunter’s and GRANTED with respect to Mr. Carey and the Carey campaign.
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.
The Election Officer finds that the appearance of several large Carey campaign signs on the Hunter’s Point Steel building warrants the following relief, including an opportunity for Mr. Hoffa to reach Hunter’s employees represented by Local Union 810.
The Election Officer orders the following:
1. Within three (3) days of the date of this decision, Local Union 810 President
Lou Smith shall sign the attached “Notice to Local Union 810 Members” and post it on all local union bulletin boards at the Hunter’s facility in Long Island City. The notice must remain posted through December 10, 1996.
James P. Hoffa
November 11, 1996
Page 1
2. Local Union 810 shall afford an opportunity to the Hoffa campaign to send a mailing to Local Union 810 members employed by Hunter’s. The Hoffa campaign may submit one 8½11-inch sheet of campaign material, printed on one side, to Local Union 810 within three (3) days of the date of this decision. If the Hoffa campaign provides this material, Local Union 810 shall duplicate and mail the material, within two (2) days of its receipt and without any other enclosure or reference to it, to Local Union 810 members employed by Hunter’s. The costs of the mailing shall be borne by the Carey campaign.
3. Within five (5) days of the date of this decision, the local union shall submit an affidavit to the Election Officer demonstrating its compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this order. This affidavit shall include a copy of the invoice sent to the Carey campaign. The Carey campaign will immediately forward to Local Union 810 the amount of the invoice.
4. The Carey campaign shall cease and desist from accepting campaign contributions resulting from the actions of Local Union 810 members affixing pro-Carey material to employer property. The Carey campaign is further ordered to take all steps necessary to ensure compliance with this cease and desist order, including, but not limited to, ensuring that its supporters at the Hunter’s facility do not display campaign signs and immediately removing any such material posted in violation of this order. Within two (2) days of paying the invoice from Local Union 810, the Carey campaign will file an affidavit with the Election Officer detailing its compliance with this order, attaching a copy of the check confirming payment to Local Union 810 for the mailing of the Hoffa campaign material.
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
James P. Hoffa
November 11, 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
Barbara C. Deinhardt, New York City Protest Coordinator
NOTICE TO LOCAL UNION 810 MEMBERS
RE: IMPROPER USE OF EMPLOYER PROPERTY
The Election Officer has found that campaign signs were improperly placed on the outside of the Hunter’s Point Steel building, where members of the local union work.
The Election Rules protect campaigning as a personal right of members.
Employer resources or property do not belong to members and cannot be used by them to campaign.
Putting International officer campaign material on employer property violates the Election Rules.
______________________ ___________________________
Date Lou Smith, President
Teamsters Local Union 810
This is an official notice which must remain posted through December 10, 1996 and must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.
Approved by Barbara Zack Quindel, IBT Election Officer.
[1]Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules guarantees all union members the right “to participate in campaign activities, including the right to . . . support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.”
[2]In Sweeney, the Election Officer found that a campaign sticker affixed to the outside of the employer’s building also violated the Rules.
[3]Only if, in the normal course of business, the employer rented space on its building, or on a billboard attached to its building, would a payment of fair market value to hang a sign be permissible.