November 13, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Sheila Fuller
November 13, 1996
Page 1
Sheila Fuller
2023 Wingfield Avenue
Louisville, KY 40210
Jerry Vincent, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 783
7711 Beulah Church Road
Louisville, KY 40228
William T. Hogan, Jr.
219 Avondale
Palatine, IL 60067
Sheila Fuller
November 13, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1184-LU783-SCE
Gentlepersons:
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
Sheila Fuller, a member of Local Union 783. Ms. Fuller alleges that William Hogan, Jr., a member of Local Union 714, campaigned at a stewards’ recognition night dinner and dance sponsored by Local Union 783 on November 2, 1996.
Local Union 783 Secretary-Treasurer Jerry Vincent admits that Mr. Hogan spoke at the dinner. Mr. Vincent maintains, however, that Mr. Hogan is permitted as a union member to speak at a local union event, and that any campaigning which may have occurred was incidental to the right to campaign on union time. Mr. Vincent also claims that during his remarks
Mr. Hogan offered any person who wished to speak on behalf of Mr. Carey’s candidacy the opportunity to do so.
This protest was investigated by Associate Regional Coordinator Joe Childers.
Sheila Fuller
November 13, 1996
Page 1
The facts are not in dispute. On November 2, 1996, Local Union 783 sponsored a “Stewards Recognition Night” dinner and dance, which included an open bar, dinner and special guest speakers. The invitation promised “interesting guest speakers.” Local Union 783 paid for the gathering with local union funds, but did not pay Mr. Hogan’s expenses to travel to the event. The local union did pay for Mr. Hogan’s dinner. Approximately 135 members and guests attended the event.
Mr. Vincent emceed the gathering, and the local union’s executive board attended. After a few remarks, Mr. Vincent introduced Mr. Hogan and asked him to say a few words. An audiotape of Mr. Hogan’s remarks, provided by the protester, was reviewed during the investigation. Approximately 10 minutes of Mr. Hogan’s remarks were not taped, according to the protester.
The portion of Mr. Hogan’s speech reviewed by the Election Officer is approximately
15 minutes long. In his remarks, Mr. Hogan makes reference to “supporters” of Ron Carey, a candidate for general president, and the “division in our union.” “I challenge Carey supporters to show how this [division] makes us stronger,” Mr. Hogan states. He characterizes IBT members who support Mr. Carey as “boring . . . programmed . . . ignorant [and] brain dead.” He says that Carey supporters cannot “tell me one thing he has done . . . they can’t think of anything . . . it is scary.” Mr. Hogan refers to “ballots” and the fact that one million IBT members did not vote in the 1991 International officer election. He states that “I will do everything I can [as a member] to get Jimmy Hoffa elected . . . to turn this union around . . . to get pride back in this union.”
Mr. Hogan charges that Mr. Carey fired him as head of the union’s trade division because he would not “dance to Carey’s music.” He says that “the biggest nightmare we have is our general president.” Referring to the election of International officers, Mr. Hogan urges IBT members to vote. He criticizes Mr. Carey’s trusteeing of Local Union 714, which Mr. Hogan formerly headed, and states that “this is a union that is not working.” He concludes his remarks by referring to “phone banks” and urging Local Union 783 stewards “to get the vote out.” He states that “ballots are going out November 7 . . . you’ll get them around November 11 or 12 . . . I just encourage you to vote for Hoffa.”
The Rules are designed to ensure that candidates have equal access and opportunity to campaign at local union meetings and functions, if campaigning is allowed at all. The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 5(a), provide, in relevant part:
(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.
Sheila Fuller
November 13, 1996
Page 1
(4) A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor or against any candidate in conjunction with its meetings or otherwise. 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, literature distribution at meetings, literature distribution tables, etc.
Article VIII, Section 5(a)(3) of the Rules, which sets out the notice requirements for campaigning during local union meetings, does not apply to informal social gatherings. However, Section 5(a)(4) applies to local union “meetings or otherwise,” which includes social gatherings.
Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4) of the Rules is clear in prohibiting “discrimination in favor or against any candidate in conjunction with its meetings or otherwise.” The Election Officer’s investigation reveals that by permitting Mr. Hogan to make a campaign speech for Mr. Hoffa, the local union discriminated against Mr. Carey, in violation of the Rules.
Moreover, Article VIII, Section 11(c) and Article XII, Section 1(b) of the Rules prohibit the use of union funds, facilities and equipment to assist in campaigning unless the union is reimbursed at fair-market value and equal access to such assistance is provided to all candidates. It is undisputed that the November 2 stewards’ banquet was paid for with local union funds. It also is undisputed that Local Union 783 did not provide Mr. Carey or his representatives an equal opportunity to campaign at the banquet.
Mr. Vincent defends the propriety of Mr. Hogan’s remarks on several grounds. He states that Mr. Hogan is not a candidate for International office and “does not sacrifice his right to voice his opinion on the International Election simply because he is a union officer.” While it is certainly true that every IBT member retains the right to campaign for the candidate he or she supports, they are prohibited from doing so in the context of an expenditure of union funds. Rules, Article VIII, Section 11(b). There is no incidental campaigning exception to the non-discrimination provisions in Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4).
Finally, Mr. Vincent argues that Mr. Hogan offered the opportunity to members attending his speech at the banquet to speak on behalf of Mr. Carey’s candidacy. The provisions of
Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4), however, contemplate an adequate opportunity provided by the local union to plan a similar presentation, not an off-the-cuff- remark by an opposing campaigner.
In consideration of the foregoing, the protest is GRANTED.
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.
Sheila Fuller
November 13, 1996
Page 1
In fashioning a remedy, the Election Officer notes that ballots for the International officer election already have been mailed to IBT members. Thus, while the Election Officer might otherwise order Local Union 783 to provide Mr. Carey equal access to members attending the event, such remedy is not practical at this point. Accordingly, the Election Officer directs the following:
1. Within one (1) day of the date of this decision, Jerry Vincent shall sign the attached “Notice to Local Union 783 Members” and post it on all local union bulletin boards at the local union offices. The notice must remain posted through December 10, 1996.
2. Local Union 783 shall afford an opportunity to the Carey campaign to send a mailing to those IBT members who attended the November 2 banquet. The Carey campaign may submit two 8½11-inch sheets of campaign material, printed on one side, to Local Union 783 within three (3) days of the date of this decision. If the Carey campaign provides this material, Local Union 783 shall duplicate and mail the material, within one (1) day of its receipt and without any other enclosure or reference to it, to IBT members who attended the banquet. The costs of the mailing shall be borne by the Local Union 783.
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. It shall attach to the affidavit a list of members to whom the Carey campaign mailing was sent.
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
Sheila Fuller
November 13, 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
Joe Childers, Associate Regional Coordinator
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION 783
The Election Rules state that a local union shall not discriminate in favor of or against any candidate for International office in conjunction with its meetings or otherwise.
The Election Officer has found that Local Union 783 violated the Election Rules when William T. Hogan, Jr. made a campaign speech supporting James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, at a union-sponsored stewards’ banquet without providing a similar opportunity to Ron Carey, who is also a candidate for general president. The Election Officer has directed the local union to provide a campaign mailing for Mr. Carey to those IBT members who attended the banquet.
Local Union 783 understands that it cannot discriminate against any candidate for International office.
________________________ _______________________________
Date Jerry T. Vincent, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 783
This is an official notice which must remain posted until December 10, 1996. This notice must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.
Approved by Barbara Zack Quindel, IBT Election Officer.