December 4, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Jon Anderson
December 4, 1996
Page 1
Jon R. Anderson
800 McBride Boulevard
New Westminster, BC V3L 5P6
Garnet Zimmerman, President
Teamsters Local Union 31
1 Grosvenor Square
Delta, BC V3M 5S1
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
Jon Anderson
December 4, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1281-LU31-EOH
Gentlemen:
Jon R. Anderson, a member of Local Union 31, 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 October 1996 publication of his local union, 31 Teamwork, contains campaign material, in violation of the Rules.
Specifically, Mr. Anderson states that the publication is essentially “16 pages of campaign literature.” Mr. Anderson claims that the publication fails to cover any local union
issues, such as contract proposals, social events, etc. Mr. Anderson further contends that the publication contains the reports of two Convention delegates who are not rank-and-file members. Mr. Anderson also contends that the local union refused to publish an article he had submitted for the publication.
This protest was investigated by Protest Chief Benetta Mansfield.
In Swannie, P-1257-LU31-EOH (November 20, 1996), the Election Officer reviewed the October issue of 31 Teamwork in detail. There the Election Officer found:
Jon Anderson
December 4, 1996
Page 1
The investigation revealed that the October 1996 issue of 31 Team Work was the first scheduled issue of the publication printed after the Convention. Thus, the first opportunity to report Convention proceedings to the membership occurred in the October 1996 issue.
. . .
The Election Officer acknowledges that issues concerning the Canadian Sovereignty amendment are of enormous concern to Canadian members. In prior decisions, the Election Officer has determined that union-financed communications expressing opinions on this issue constitute legitimate union business and do not automatically violate the Rules. See Hoffa, P-733-IBT-SCE (May 1, 1996); Swannie, P-856-LU31-CAN (September 12, 1996).
The Election Officer also acknowledges that Convention coverage, a critical function of local union news entities, presents unique variables to analysis under the tone, content and timing test. Many aspects of the Convention were politically charged. Many attendees openly displayed their political affiliation. Energetic demonstrations of support for candidates were common, as were heated political debates. A portion of the proceedings was devoted solely to the nominations of International officer candidates.
The Convention is an event of significant interest to many IBT members. Informing members of the events of the Convention through union publications is a legitimate duty of local unions, joint councils and conference officers. Reporting on the proceedings at the Convention would be almost impossible without some reference to the nomination process, which was an integral part of the Convention, and without reference to one or more of the candidates. Moreover, Mr. Carey, as general president of the IBT, served as the chair of the Convention. This role focused a great deal of attention and interest on his actions. Generally, detailed coverage of Mr. Carey as Convention chair would not automatically violate the Rules.
As to Mr. Anderson’s contention that the publication did not contain other matters, the Election Officer also addressed this in Swannie:
Jon Anderson
December 4, 1996
Page 1
In addition, a union-financed publication is not obligated to present all points of view concerning the conduct or outcome of the Convention. Similarly, a union-financed publication is not required to report on everything that occurred on the Convention floor. Such requirements would effectively prohibit Convention coverage by union-financed publications by obligating journalists for such publications to report on every event, act or proceeding that occurred at the Convention. Such a requirement would not only create a near-impossible task for such reporters, but would also intrude on their journalistic discretion. The Election Appeals Master has stated that “[A]bsent a political endorsement or attack, as established by the communication’s tone, content, and timing, the Election Rules do not empower me to intrude upon the journalistic process of a union publication.” In Re: Lamy, 95 - Elec. App. - 53 (KC) (January 11, 1996). Moreover, the Election Officer has previously determined that “a union-financed communication does not violate the Rules because it fails to treat opposing ideas or opinions.” Volpe et al., P-828-IBT-MGN et seq. (July 11, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 218 (July 23, 1996).
As the Election Officer concluded in Swannie:
While the tone and content of the protested articles are highly critical of Mr. Carey and the current administration, it is permissible commentary on an event of enormous significance to IBT members and an issue of great concern to Canadian members. The criticisms of Mr. Carey are directed at his role as Convention chair and participant in the drafting of the Canadian Sovereignty amendment. The reports and commentary do not reference the election or the candidacy of any individual. The quarterly publication was scheduled to be published in October but its release was delayed during the pre-publication review process. While the standard by which such reports are analyzed becomes more stringent as the election approaches, the Election Officer determines that--even considering the proximity of the elections--the protested publication does not violate the Rules because it constitutes the first opportunity since the Convention to report on issues of important and legitimate interest to the membership.
Based on the decision in Swannie, 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:
Jon Anderson
December 4, 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