This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

 

 

October 30, 1997


James P. Hoffa

October 30, 1997

Page 1

 

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098

 

Ron Carey, General President

Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

 

Randy Cammack, Sec.-Treas.

Teamsters Local Union 63

845 Oak Park Road

Covina, CA 91724

 

David L. Neigus, Deputy

   General Counsel

Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001


Arthur Hackworth, Esq.

Consolidated Freightways

175 Linfeld Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

 

Susan Davis, Esq.

Cohen, Weiss and Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036

 

Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,

   Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

Suite 200

Farmington Hill, MI 48334

 

 

 


James P. Hoffa

October 30, 1997

Page 1

 

Re:  Election Office Case No. PR-014-LU63-PNW

 

Gentlemen:

 

James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, 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 Ron Carey, general president and a candidate

for re-election in the rerun election, and Local Union 63 President Randy Cammack.The protester alleges that Mr. Carey and several IBT International and local union representatives were campaigning for Mr. Carey on the premises of Consolidated Freight, an employer, while on the IBT payroll.  The protester alleges that this consitutes a prohibited use of union resources.

 

According to the IBT, Mr. Carey was in California in connection with union business and was visiting the Consolidated Freight terminal to talk about NAFTA and the National Freight negotiation.  His activities at the facility did not constitute campaigning.

 

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Christine M. Mrak.


James P. Hoffa

October 30, 1997

Page 1

 

On October 15, 1997, Ron Carey gave a speech at the dock at a Consolidated Freight facility in Mira Loma, California. He had been in California for a meeting of the UPS negotiating committee trying to finalize contractual details and was invited by Randy

 

Cammack, president of Local Union 63, to talk to the employees at Consolidated Freight. Mr. Carey was accompanied by Mr. Cammack, International Representative J.T. Taylor, Mr. Careys bodyguard and business agents from Local Union 63. In his speech he discussed the Fast Track trade bill pending before the United State Congress and NAFTA and he encouraged the members to sign a petition opposing Fast Track. The Consolidated Freight Terminal Manager stated that from his observation, Mr. Carey was at the facility on union business and that he heard Mr. Carey tell members who questioned him about the election that he was not there to campaign. The witnesses presented by the protester concede that they did not hear Mr. Carey nor the other IBT representatives engage in any explicit campaigning, although they assert that the only reason Mr. Carey would have come personally to discuss NAFTA was to advance his profile for campaign-related purposes.

 

Article XII, Section (b)(4) of the Rules prohibits a member from campaigning for him/herself or for any other candidate during time that is paid for by the union or by any employer. In this case, there is no evidence that Mr. Carey or the other union representatives engaged in campaigning during the assembly of members at the Consolidated Freight facility. Rather, Mr. Carey discussed matters of interest and concern to IBT members and those who had accompanied him there passed out the petitions for members to sign concerning Fast Track. These activities constituted legitimate union business, not campaigning, and thus did not violate the Rules. See Kirkpatrick, P-1118-IBT-CLA (November 25, 1996) (no violation where candidate visited Consolidated Freight dock area to promote IBT Action conference, a legitimate, non-campaign event).             

 

Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.

 

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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

 


James P. Hoffa

October 30, 1997

Page 1

 

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 NW, Suite 445, Washington, D.C. 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

Christine M. Mrak, Regional Coordinator