November 13, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Victor Farvet
November 13, 1996
Page 1
Victor M. Farvet
12790 S.W. 25th Terrace
Miami, FL 33175
A. F. Bryant
NAACP Proviso West Suburban
405 Bellwood Avenue
Bellwood, IL 60104
Richard Brook
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
James Hoffa Campaign
c/o Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Victor Farvet
November 13, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1154-LU390-NCE
Gentlemen:
Victor M. Farvet, a member of Local Union 390, 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 the Proviso West Suburban Branch of the NAACP (“Proviso NAACP”) in Westchester, Illinois, made an improper employer contribution to the campaign of James P. Hoffa by issuing a letter endorsing Mr. Hoffa, attached to which was a sheet criticizing incumbent General President Ron Carey for “systematically eliminating” black leaders in the Teamsters.
The signer of the endorsement letter, Proviso NAACP President A. F. Bryant admits writing the endorsement, but denies that Proviso NAACP is an employer. He further states that he knows nothing about the anti-Carey sheet that the protester alleged to be attached to his letter.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
Victor Farvet
November 13, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Farvet states that he was given a copy of the Proviso NAACP endorsement by a driver in Florida who had received it in the mail. The anti-Carey sheet was attached to the endorsement letter as part of the mailing. Mr. Farvet alleges that Proviso NAACP is an employer, and that such a mailing consequently violated the prohibition in the Rules on employer campaign contributions.
Mr. Bryant denies making a mailing. He states that an NAACP member and UPS employee named Vernell Smith approached him, explained that Mr. Hoffa was “best for black people,” and that “young black men and women are losing their jobs under Carey.” Mr. Bryant further states that Mr. Smith asked for an endorsement letter to post on a union bulletin board. Mr. Bryant admits giving him such a letter on Proviso NAACP stationery.[1] Mr. Byrant denies any knowledge of any mailing of his letter and further denies any knowledge of the anti-Carey sheet attached to it.
Article XII, Section 1(a) incorporates Article IV, Section 4 of the IBT Constitution into the Rules. That section states, in pertinent part: “No candidate for election shall accept or use any contributions or other things of value received from any employers, representative of an employer, foundation, trust or similar entity . . .” The definition of “employer,” under the Rules, is “any individual, corporation, trust or other entity that employs another, paying monetary or other compensation in exchange for that individual’s services . . .”
Under the Rules, an employer’s endorsement of an International officer candidate is the equivalent of an employer campaign contribution, prohibited by Article XII, Section 1(b)(1).[2] Hoffa, P-1048-LU572-CLA (November 1, 1996); Knox, P-1046-LU337-MOI et seq.
(October 30, 1996); Maney, P-956-IATSE-NYC et seq. (October 2, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec.
App. - 251 (KC) (October 15, 1996); Feeley, P-874-LU817-MGN (September 17, 1996).
The protester argues that the Proviso NAACP is a “similar entity” under Article XII, Section 1(a), and therefore prohibited from contributing to Mr. Hoffa’s campaign. The investi-gation revealed that Proviso NAACP is a committee of eight volunteer members, with no employees. The National NAACP states that the Proviso NAACP is an authorized committee, not a branch of the NAACP. The Proviso NAACP does not possess a tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service. Based upon the investigation, the Election Officer concludes that the Proviso NAACP is not an entity similar to an employer, foundation or a trust and therefore is not subject to the restrictions under Article XII, Section 1(a) of the Rules.
Victor Farvet
November 13, 1996
Page 1
The protester also argues that the Proviso NAACP is an employer because its letterhead identifies several officers and attorneys who--although they may not receive monetary compensation--receive “other compensation” in return for their services such as titles of great prestige.[3] The protester also argues that the Proviso NAACP has the power to hire or fire employees and may do so in the future. The Election Officer finds, however, that Proviso NAACP is not an employer. The definition of employer specifically requires that the entity “employs another.” The Proviso has no employees. Mr. Bryant states that under national NAACP rules, the hiring of employees must be authorized by the national office and Proviso NAACP has no such authorization. The national office of the NAACP corroborated
Mr. Bryant’s explanation.
Under Article XII, Section (1)(b)(5) of the Rules, “[n]othing herein shall prohibit any candidate from accepting contributions made by any nonmember who is not an employer.” Thus, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Bryant’s endorsement letter, as a contribution by a non-employer, did not violate the Rules. See Rockstroh, P-1003-JHC-EOH (November 5, 1996) (promotional aspects of cable broadcast by non-employer did not violate Rules).[4]
With respect to the distribution of Mr. Bryant’s letter and the anti-Carey sheet by unknown persons, there no evidence of any conduct that violated the Rules.[5] Furthermore, the content of the anti-Carey sheet is beyond the scope of the Election Officer’s review. See Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996) (Election Officer does not review or censor campaign material).
For the foregoing reasons, 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:
Victor Farvet
November 13, 1996
Page 1
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
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator
[1]It states, “As president of this N.A.A.C.P., I feel that we must do everything possible to help those who have helped us. That is why I wholeheartily [sic] encourage fellow teamsters to support the HOFFA/SLATE. I will be doing everything I can to help this slate. HOFFA.”
[2]Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) states, “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.”
[3]The Proviso NAACP stationery identifies in the left-hand margin the names of the president, vice president, secretary, three board members and two attorneys.
[4]The protester argues that Proviso NAACP should be considered an “independent committee,” under the Rules. The Proviso NAACP, however, is not a caucus or group of union members.
[5]The investigation did not identify the person who asked Mr. Bryant for the letter; there is no Vernell Smith on the IBT’s national membership list.