October 20, 1997
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Steve Clark
October 20, 1997
Page 1
Steve Clark
14032 Hyland Road
Surrey, BC V3W 2C4
CANADA
David Kozak, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 464
490 Broadway
Vancouver, BC V5T 1X3
CANADA
Ron Carey Slate
c/o Susan Davis, Esq.
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Louis Lacroix, President
Teamsters Canada
2540 Daniel Johnson, Suite 804
Laval, QC H7T 2S3
CANADA
James P. Hoffa Slate
c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.
Baptiste & Wilder
1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
David L. Neigus, Deputy General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Steve Clark
October 20, 1997
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-003-LU464-EOH
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Steve Clark, a member of Local Union 464, against David Kozak, a candidate in the initial election on the Carey Slate and secretary-treasurer of Local Union 464, and the Carey Slate.
Steve Clark
October 20, 1997
Page 1
Mr. Clark alleges that three written statements, received by him in a single mailing, constitute the improper use of union resources to campaign. Mr. Kozak admits that the facilities and resources of Local Union 464 were used to prepare and mail these written statements to the protester and other members, but contends they are legitimate union communications and do not violate the Rules.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Member Kathryn Naylor.
The mailing contains a letter addressed to “All Shop Stewards” and signed by Mr. Kozak in his capacity as secretary-treasurer. The letter announces that the recent IBT International officer election has been overturned and that a new election has been ordered. It also advises the stewards to post an enclosed “bulletin” for general circulation. In the letter, Mr. Kozak states that “[I]t’s unfortunate that we as Canadians are having our election process discredited in this fashion as all of this is the result of the actions of outsiders in the U.S.”
The “bulletin” enclosed is addressed to “All Principal Officers” and signed by Louis Lacroix, President of Teamsters Canada. The bulletin expresses regret concerning the campaign funding violations found by the Election Officer and expresses confidence that the Canadian results were not affected. The bulletin contains the following comment:
These unfortunate events in the U.S. serve to remind us that the time is overdue to take control of our own affairs in Canada and to get the U.S. government out of our union. Now that our Canadian Autonomy agreement has the unanimous support of our local unions, we have the mandate and the solidarity required to secure its adoption in the International Constitution at the earliest possible opportunity.
The third document is the statement released by the IBT after receipt of the Election Officer’s decision in Cheatem, Post-27-EOH, et. seq. (August 21, 1997), aff’d. in relevant part, 97 Elec. App. 322 (KC) (October 10, 1997), requiring a rerun of the election. This document was determined not to violate the Rules in Atha, PR-001-IBT-EOH (October 10, 1997).
Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication may not be “used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.” In reviewing union-financed communications for improper campaign content, the Election Officer looks to the tone, content and timing of the publication. Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). The Election Officer also considers the context in which the communications appeared.
Steve Clark
October 20, 1997
Page 1
In Martin, the Election Officer recognized that union officers and officials have a “right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern.” (quoting Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The Election Officer has also stated despite references to the election process, “[r]eports on the results of protest decisions are legitimate subjects for union-financed publications.” See Blake, P-245-JC42-CLA (December 18, 1996), aff'd 96 - Elec. App. - 54 (KC) (January 12, 1996).
Mr. Kozak’s letter advises recipients of the contents of the mailing and expresses the opinion that the ordering of the new election is “unfortunate.” The document contains no direct or indirect attacks on any candidate, nor does it support or praise any candidate. Other than the permissible report on the Election Officer’s decision in Cheatem, the letter is devoid of any reference or connection to the election.
The Lacroix bulletin incorporates the concept of Canadian autonomy, which the protester claims is campaigning because it is a campaign issue used by the Carey Slate. The Election Officer has specifically ruled that documents discussing issues which have become campaign themes may be distributed through the use of union resources when “related to legitimate union business.” Hoffa, P-733-IBT-SCE (September 8, 1997) (holding that Canadian autonomy is a legitimate union issue). Thus, the distribution of this material is not a Rules violation merely because Canadian sovereignty was also an issue in the campaign. Mr. Lacroix’s message directly connects the Canadian autonomy issue to its early adoption within the IBT and the results of the prior election. The bulletin communicates an issue of concern to Canadian members and its distribution by Local Union 464 does not violate the Rules.
As previously noted, the statement released by the IBT on August 22, 1997, was determined in Atha to be proper under the Rules.
Mr. Clark’s final assertion, that the Rules were violated by a “meeting called for by the Carey slate last year” at which “Diane Kilmury and Dave Kozak were seen handing out free shirts and hats,” is untimely under the Rules at Article IV, Section 2(b).
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:
Steve Clark
October 20, 1997
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, 444 N. Capitol Street, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Benetta M. Mansfield
Interim Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master