November 18, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Richard Meyer & Thomas Tullius
November 18, 1996
Page 1
Richard Meyer
1570 Flicker Drive
Florissant, MO 63031
Thomas Tullius
336 W. Woodruff Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91007
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
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Richard Meyer & Thomas Tullius
November 18, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-1201-IBT-MOI
P-1223-IBT-MOI
P-1240-IBT-CLA
Gentlemen:
Related pre-election protests were 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 Meyer, a member of Local Union 600, and Thomas R. Tullius, a member of Local Union 848. Mr. Meyer, in P-1201-IBT-MOI and P-1223-IBT-MOI, and Mr. Tullius, in
P-1240-IBT-CLA, allege that campaign material supporting the candidacy of Ron Carey, the incumbent general president and a candidate for reelection, improperly implies an endorsement of Mr. Carey’s candidacy by the IBT because it was mailed in an envelope upon which was printed the IBT logo and IBT headquarters in Washington, D.C. as the return address.
Mr. Meyer also alleges that the inclusion of this return address on the two mailings that constitute the bases of his protests constitutes an improper use of union resources because undeliverable mail will be returned to IBT headquarters, where an IBT employee will handle it.
Richard Meyer & Thomas Tullius
November 18, 1996
Page 1
The IBT responds that it has authorized the use of its non-profit, bulk-mail permit in accord with Article VIII, Section 7(a)(3) of the Rules, and that distribution of campaign literature via the permit is non-discriminatory and funded by the candidates requesting IBT distribution, in accord with Postal Service regulations.
The Carey campaign responds that the mailing was made in accordance with distribution procedures approved by the Election Officer.
Regional Coordinators Michael D. Gordon and Dolly M. Gee investigated the protests.
1. Allegations of Improper Endorsements
Mr. Meyer provided evidence to indicate that the protested mailing arrived in envelopes bearing the address of IBT headquarters as the return address. In addition, the mailing protested in P-1201-IBT-MOI also included the IBT logo on the envelope and the words “Freight Teamsters for a Strong Union.” In the bottom, left corner of each envelope, in small but legible print, appear the words “[t]his campaign material is not endorsed by the IBT.”
In regard to the use of the IBT emblem or logo, the Election Officer has repeatedly held that the use of the union logo on materials that are obviously campaign materials is permissible. Rules, Article XII, Section 1(b)(3). Antoskiewicz, P-452-LU507-CLE
(February 2, 1996), Garcia, P-436-LU435-RMT (February 22, 1996); Hoffa, P-214-IBT-SCE
(November 28, 1995).
The mailings received by the protesters were clearly labeled as “campaign material” that was “not endorsed by the IBT.” The use of the IBT logo does not amount to an endorse-ment prohibited by the Rules.
Article VIII, Section 7(a)(3) of the Rules states that the union’s bulk-mail permit may be used by candidates “to the extent permitted by postal regulations.” The investigation revealed that the inclusion of the IBT’s return address on the envelopes resulted from
U.S. Postal Service requirements. If a union entity such as the IBT authorizes the distribution of campaign material through the mail, all candidates may use the union’s non-profit, bulk-mail permit. The Postal Service requires that, in order to use the permit, candidates must display the address of the organization to which the permit belongs as the return address on any such mailing. Thus, any candidate sending campaign material with the use of the IBT’s permit would be required by Postal Service policy to include the IBT’s address as the return address.
Richard Meyer & Thomas Tullius
November 18, 1996
Page 1
The Rules allow candidates to utilize union resources in order to mail campaign material so long as such resources are available in a non-discriminatory fashion to all candidates. These resources include the use of the bulk-mail permit. According to the Rules, candidates using this permit must comply with Postal Service regulations. The inclusion of the protested return address does not, therefore, violate the Rules. Additionally, the address does not create a reasonable impression of endorsement by the IBT because of the “campaign material” language on the front of each envelope.
On October 15, 1996, the IBT sent notice to all candidates that the bulk-rate permit would be available for the use of all candidate literature mailings. On October 22, 1996, the IBT issued a memo to these candidates stating, inter alia, that such mailings must list the IBT as the return address in order to comply with Postal Service requirements. These notices indicate that the use of the permit, and the requirements for its use, were administered in a non-discriminatory fashion.
The inclusion of the IBT logo or return address does not, therefore, violate the Rules.
2. Allegations of the Use of Union Resources to Campaign
Mr. Meyer alleges that, since undeliverable campaign literature will be returned to the IBT, union resources will be used to handle, sort, and store such material, in violation of the Rules. The investigation revealed, however, that the Postal Service does not return undeliver-able third-class mail to the sender via the return address unless the sender pays an additional charge and labels the mailing envelope “address correction requested.” Neither envelope submitted by Mr. Meyer bears this label. As a result, undeliverables in the protested mailings will not be returned to the IBT. The protester’s allegation is, therefore, without merit.
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
Richard Meyer & Thomas Tullius
November 18, 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, 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
Michael D. Gordon, Regional Coordinator
Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator