January 8, 1997
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Lon Fields
January 8, 1997
Page 1
Lon E. Fields, Sr., President
Teamsters Local Union 89
3813 Taylor Boulevard
Louisville, KY 40215
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Jerry Vincent, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 783
7711 Beulah Church Road
Louisville, KY 40228
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
Lon Fields
January 8, 1997
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1334-LU783-NYC
Gentlemen:
Lon E. Fields, Sr., president of Local Union 89 and a candidate for International vice president on the Ron Carey No Corruption-No Dues Increase Slate (“Carey slate”), 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”). The protester contends that James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, the Hoffa campaign and Local Union 783 have improperly used union resources to do a mailing of campaign literature supporting the Hoffa campaign.
Lon Fields
January 8, 1997
Page 1
Mr. Hoffa responds that he has no knowledge of the mailings referred to in the protest and, based upon the evidence submitted by Local Union 783 Secretary-Treasurer Jerry Vincent, the mailings were not done with union resources and the protest should be denied. Mr. Vincent responds that no local union resources were utilized to do the mailing. The local union further responds that while its bulk-mail permit was used, Mr. Vincent paid the bill for the mailing out of personal funds and the use of the bulk-mail permit is available to all candidates on the same terms.
New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt investigated this protest.
Attached to the protest was a copy of campaign literature supporting Mr. Hoffa and the Jim Hoffa-No Dues Increase-25 & Out Slate (“Hoffa slate”). It provided readers with a copy of the toll-free Election Office number to request a new ballot. A copy of the envelope indicated that the literature was mailed using Local Union 783’s postage meter. The copy of the envelope provided was addressed to a member at his home address.
During the investigation, Mr. Vincent provided evidence and receipts showing that the paper was commercially purchased and paid for by the personal funds of a Local Union 783 business agent. The literature was drafted on a personal computer at Mr. Vincent’s home. Nine hundred copies of the literature, printed at a commercial printing company, were paid for personally by Mr. Vincent. The labels were furnished by the Hoffa campaign and were affixed by volunteers on non-work time.
The postage was obtained through the use of Local Union 783’s non-profit organization bulk-rate permit. Mr. Vincent was billed for the postage and paid the bill with personal funds on December 8, 1996. Mr. Vincent submitted evidence that the local union has a longstanding practice of allowing all candidates access to the local union postage meter, so long as the services are paid for by the candidate or the candidate’s representative.
The facts presented here are indistinguishable from those in Hoffa, P-1255-LU243-MGN (November 22, 1996). There, the Election Officer stated:
Article VIII, Section 7(a)(1) of the Rules states that each candidate “shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of any other candidate, to have his/her literature distributed by the Union, at the candidate’s expense.” Thus, the Rules provide that local unions must distribute candidates’ literature if a candidate so requests. Article VIII, Section 7(c) specifies that candidates who do so “shall pay, on a reasonable basis, for the actual cost of distribution, including . . . time required to do the work and postage for mailing.” Section 7(g) “strongly recommend[s]” that the union “adopt procedures for complying with candidates’ requests for distribution of literature and that it advise all candidates of those procedures.” (Emphasis added).
During the 1991 International officer election campaign, the Election Officer found that the analogous provisions on candidate literature and mailings in the 1991 Election Rules applied in a protest involving the use of a local union’s non-profit, bulk-rate permit for a campaign mailing by an International officer slate. See Wilson, P-1097-LU579-NCE (November 20, 1991).
Lon Fields
January 8, 1997
Page 1
Local Union 773 did not violate the Rules by failing to notify opposing candidates and slates that its postage meter was available for campaign use. Article VIII, Section 7(a)(1)(b) requires a local union to make a similar distribution on behalf of a candidate “if requested.” The Rules themselves afford “equal access” for this opportunity.
Here, Local Union 783 has submitted evidence that it similarly allowed the use of the bulk-rate permit to other candidates as requested. There is no evidence of the use of union resources in violation of the Rules.
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
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