November 22, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Pat Connell
November 22, 1996
Page 1
Pat Connell
60-60 60th Street
Maspeth, NY 11378
Jerry Mutchnick, Vice President
Gould Paper, Inc.
315 Park Avenue, S.
New York, NY 10010
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
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Pat Connell
November 22, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1227-LU807-NYC
Gentlemen:
Pat Connell, a member of Local Union 807, 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”) against James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, the Hoffa campaign and Gould Paper, Inc. (“Gould”), an IBT employer in New York City. The protester alleges that on November 12, 1996, he observed a Gould truck in Long Island City, New York displaying a large Hoffa campaign sign, which represents an employer contribution to the Hoffa campaign, in violation of the Rules.
The charged parties deny any knowledge of the sign.
New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt investigated this protest.
The protester states that on November 12, 1996, he saw a Gould truck driving in
Long Island City with a Hoffa campaign sign measuring 1212 feet affixed to the back.
Pat Connell
November 22, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Connell asserts that “this employer contribution targets the large Teamster population in and around Long Island City and the New York City Metropolitan Area.”
Gould Paper employs IBT members represented by Local Union 807. Jerry Mutchnick, Gould’s vice president in charge of warehouse operations, states that the company was unaware of the sign observed by the protester.[1] Since learning of the instant protest, Mr. Mutchnick has checked in the warehouse and with the steward to ensure that no campaign materials remain on any Gould trucks. Mr. Mutchnick also states that Gould will send a notice to Local Union 807, reminding the local union of the company’s policy prohibiting the affixing of any campaign material to its trucks.
As the Election Officer has stated in several recent matters, “[n]othing in . . . the Rules authorizes members to affix campaign material to employer-owned trucks . . .” Hoffa, P-992-LU707-NYC (October 7, 1996); Knox, P-1046-LU337-MOI et seq. (October 30, 1996); Sweeney, P-1058-LU807-NYC (October 28, 1996). While the Rules protect the ability of members to support candidates of their own choosing, that protection does not extend to affixing campaign stickers and other material to property that belongs to an employer.[2] 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.”
Affixing campaign material to employer property has other consequences as well. Putting such material on an employer’s truck or equipment has the effect, under the Rules, of causing the employer to make an improper campaign contribution, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(1), even if the affixing of the material was against employer policy.[3] Putting campaign material on employer trucks or equipment can also create a false impression of employer endorsement, which would be another form of making an improper campaign contribution. See Hoffa, P-1048-LU572-CLA (November 1, 1996); Aguilar, P-1080-
LU848-CLA (October 31, 1996); Feeley, P-874-LU817-MGN (September 17, 1996); Maney,
P-956-IATSE-NYC et seq. (October 15, 1996); Knox, P-1006-SFD-MGN (October 14, 1996).
Pat Connell
November 22, 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 a campaign sign to an employer truck or other piece of equipment results in a violation of the Rules on the part of the candidate the member intends to support.
The Election Officer finds that the affixing of the campaign sign on the back of the Gould truck violates the Rules. There is no evidence in the record as to the identity of the person or persons who placed the sign on the truck, or how long the sign was displayed on the truck before the protester noticed it on November 12, 1996.
With respect to Gould, the Election Officer finds that the company has taken appropriate measures to prevent future occurrences of improper posting of campaign material on its equipment. The Election Officer further notes that the protest involves the isolated appearance of one campaign sign measuring 12 inches by 12 inches. There is no indication of a more widespread problem with the placement of campaign material on Gould’s trucks or other equipment.
Accordingly, the protest is RESOLVED with respect to Gould and GRANTED with respect to the Hoffa 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 and nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
With respect to the role of International officer campaigns, the Election Officer has recently reaffirmed that “International officer candidates and slates have an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that their campaign materials are not affixed improperly to private property . . .” Sweeney, P-1058-LU807-NYC (October 28, 1996); Willett, P-863-LU331-PNJ (August 16, 1996); Knox, P-1046-LU337-MOI et seq. (October 30, 1996). Thus, “[t]he Election Officer expects International officer campaigns, when they receive notice of protests involving campaign material improperly affixed to employer property, to take their share of responsibility for ensuring that such materials are removed promptly.” Sweeney, P-1029-RCS-NYC et seq. (October 28, 1996).
The Election Officer notes that the sign involved in the instant protest has been removed. “Immediate removal ends any potential impact of the improper campaigning.” Hoffman,
P-1050-LU817-NYC (October 218, 1996); Sweeney, supra.
Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that no further remedy is required at this time.
Pat Connell
November 22, 1996
Page 1
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, 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
[1]The investigation conducted by the Election Officer found that the sign at issue actually measured 1212 inches and was constructed of reflective material rather than neon as the protester claims. By the time the company learned of Mr. Connell’s protest, the sign had been removed from the truck.
[2]Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules states: “All Union members retain 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.”
[3]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.” Knowledge on the part of the employer is not an element of this violation.