November 25, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Roy L. Atha
November 25, 1996
Page 1
Roy L. Atha
1220 Selma Road
Springfield, OH 45505
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
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
Roy L. Atha
November 25, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-1241-RCS-CLE
P-1271-RCS-CLE
Gentlemen:
Roy L. Atha, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 654, filed pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging violations of the Rules with respect to two mailings made by the Carey campaign using the mailing procedure offered by the IBT. In
P-1241-RCS-CLE, Mr. Atha refers to the campaign flyer entitled, “Is Your Pension Safe?” and alleges several improprieties, including that: (1) it was printed with the IBT’s return address in Washington, D.C., although mailed under a St. Louis bulk-mail permit; (2) the disclaimer, “This campaign material is not endorsed by the IBT,” is too small; (3) the flyer incorporated the Election Officer’s name on a picture of a “sample” ballot envelope; and
Roy L. Atha
November 25, 1996
Page 1
(4) the picture of the sample ballot incorporated an IBT postage meter number. In P-1271-RCS-CLE, Mr. Atha raises his objection to the use of the IBT’s return address on campaign material bearing the St. Louis bulk-permit number with respect to a Carey campaign flyer entitled, “Back on the Road.” He alleges that the flyer was “intentionally designed by the Carey Campaign to give the members the impression that the International is sending campaign materials in support of Carey.” The Election Officer consolidated these protests for decision because they involve similar questions under the IBT’s mailing procedure for campaign material.
These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Joyce Goldstein.
1. Allegations Concerning the IBT Return Address, the St. Louis Bulk-Mail Permit and the Size of the Disclaimer
Mr. Atha’s allegations concerning the IBT return address on the campaign flyers, the use of a St. Louis bulk-mail permit and the size of the non-endorsement disclaimer on the “Is Your Pension Safe?” flyer arise under the IBT’s procedures implementing Article VIII, Section 7 of the Rules on campaign mailings.
In pertinent part, Article VIII, Section 7(a)(1) requires the IBT to afford “[e]ach candidate . . . a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of any other candidate, to have his/her literature distributed by the Union, at the candidate’s expense.” Section 7(a)(3) requires that “[a]ll literature distributed through use of the non-profit organization bulk-rate permit shall clearly state that it is campaign literature, the contents of which are not endorsed by the Union.” Section 7(g) strongly “recommend[s] that the Union adopt procedures for complying with candidates’ requests for distribution of literature and that it specifically advise all candidates of those procedures.”
In mid-October 1996, the IBT issued procedures under Article VIII, Section 7 to all International officer candidates, with further clarification on October 22. Those procedures provide, in part, that all campaign material using the IBT’s non-profit, bulk-mail status must use the IBT’s street address in Washington, D.C. as the return address. That requirement follows U.S. Postal Service regulations on the use of bulk-mail permits.
Those procedures also state that “[a]ll campaign material mailed by the International using the nonprofit bulk rate permit shall prominently state, directly below the address label, that the enclosed mailing is campaign literature, the contents of which are not endorsed by the Union.”
The Election Officer finds that the use of the IBT’s return address on the “Is Your Pension Safe?” flyer (P-1241) and the “Back on the Road” flyer (P-1271) did not violate the Rules. The investigation revealed that the bulk-mail permit #1854 (St. Louis) that appears on both flyers is registered to the Klasek Letter Company in St. Louis (“Klasek”). Klasek is an authorized mailhouse for campaign mailings under the IBT’s procedures. Campaign mailings from that mailhouse must bear the IBT’s return address because the U.S. Postal Service considers them to be IBT mailings for purposes of applying the IBT’s non-profit, bulk-mail rate.
Roy L. Atha
November 25, 1996
Page 1
With respect to the non-endorsement disclaimer on the “Is Your Pension Safe?” flyer, the Election Officer finds that it is very small and placed in the lower left-hand corner of the address side of the mailer. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated on the campaign material, as required by the Rules.
2. Allegations Concerning the Sample Ballot Envelope Printed on the “Is Your Pension Safe?” Flyer
On the back of the “Is Your Pension Safe?” flyer appears a facsimile of the envelope used by the Election Officer to mail ballots. It is stamped “SAMPLE,” and the address is shown as “Teamster Voter, 123 Main Street, Your Town, USA.” Beneath the picture is the legend, “Your ballot arrives by mail the week of November 11th. Use your vote for a stronger Union. Vote by mail for the Ron Carey Slate.”
Mr. Atha objects to the appearance on the sample ballot envelope of the Election Officer’s name in the return address and the appearance of postage meter mark #8096026, which he states is an IBT meter. In his protest, he states that “the use of the Election Officer’s name and address . . . gives the impression to the membership that the Election Officer supports Ron Carey and the Ron Carey Slate and opposes Jim Hoffa and the Hoffa Slate of candidates.” With respect to the IBT meter number, he alleges that its use constitutes “an improper use of union assets and improper campaigning . . .”
The Election Officer finds that a reasonable reader will understand that the flyer depicts a sample-ballot envelope in order to alert members to the imminent arrival of their ballot in the mail, as plainly explained in the legend underneath the picture. It does not violate the Rules for the facsimile of the ballot envelope, stamped “sample,” to otherwise appear realistic. See Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996) (alterations to draft delegate election ballot of Election Officer alerted reasonable reader to campaign content).
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:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Roy L. Atha
November 25, 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
Joyce Goldstein, Regional Coordinator