Protest Decisions

              May 13, 1998

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

James P. Hoffa

May 13, 1998

Page 1

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, Michigan  48098

Ken Hall, Director

Parcel and Small Package

  Trade Division

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC  20001

Christy Hoffman, Esq.

Legal Department

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC  20001

David L. Neigus

Deputy General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC  20001

Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,

  Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI  48334

Henry F. Murray, Esq.

Livingston, Adler, Pulda & Meiklejohn

557 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT  06105

Donato J. DeSanti, President

Teamsters Local Union 701

2003 U.S. Route 130, Suite B

North Brunswick, NJ  08902

George Quinn, Sec.-Treas.

Teamsters Local Union 701

2003 U.S. Route 130, Suite B

North Brunswick, NJ  08902

James P. Hoffa

May 13, 1998

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case Nos. PR-081-IBT-NCE

    PR-082-LU701-NCE

Gentlepersons:

James P. Hoffa

May 13, 1998

Page 1

On April 7, 1998, James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, filed a pre-election protest (PR-081) pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Ken Hall, a candidate for general president.  The protester alleged that Mr. Hall used IBT resources to engage in a campaign tour of East Coast local unions in violation of the Rules.  Specifically, the protester alleged that:  1) Mr. Hall and Christine Hoffman, a staff attorney for the IBT who the protester alleged traveled with Mr. Hall, remained on the IBT payroll and did not take leave for the campaign tour; 2) the campaign tour was coordinated by the IBT and through local union officials using union facilities and on union time; and 3) Mr. Hall’s and Ms. Hoffman’s travel was paid for or reimbursed by the IBT.

On April 10, 1998, Mr. Hall filed a protest (PR-082) against George Quinn, Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 701.  The protester alleged that Mr. Quinn used his local union office and telephone to call Wayne Fernicola, the Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 177, at his local union office to obtain campaign-related information.

The protests have been combined because, as explained below, the allegations arise from the same set of facts and circumstances.

These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.

In a sworn affidavit, Mr. Hall stated that he did not make an East Coast campaign tour.  He made one campaign trip to New Jersey on April 8, 1998.  Mr. Hall stated in his affidavit that he used his personal funds to pay the expenses of that trip.  He submitted receipts showing that he paid cash for his hotel room and gasoline purchases.  Mr. Hall took vacation leave on April 8, 1998.  The IBT submitted statements confirming that Mr. Hall took vacation leave on April 8, 1998.[1]

Ms. Hoffman arranged the campaign trip for him, but did so on her own time.  On April 6, 1998, Ms. Hoffman used his campaign office to contact a local union in New Jersey to coordinate the campaign trip.  Mr. Hall states that Ms. Hoffman was on leave from the IBT while she performed this campaign work.  The IBT confirmed that Ms. Hoffman took vacation leave on April 6 and 7, 1998, and submitted Ms. Hoffman’s time sheets documenting her leave.

On April 6, 1998, Mr. Fernicola received a call at the union office from George Quinn.  Mr. Quinn informed Mr. Fernicola that he heard that Mr. Hall was coming into town to campaign.  Mr. Quinn asked Mr. Fernicola where Mr. Hall would be campaigning.  Mr. Fernicola responded that he was not aware that Mr. Hall was going to be in New Jersey.  The conversation lasted less than five minutes.

James P. Hoffa

May 13, 1998

Page 1

About three hours later, Mr. Fernicola received a message at the union office with a telephone number he did not recognize.  When he returned the call, Ms. Hoffman answered the phone.  Believing she had called about a non-election related matter, he began discussing an arbitration case with which Ms. Hoffman was assisting the local union.  After concluding the discussion about the arbitration case, Ms. Hoffman informed him that she was calling from Mr. Hall’s campaign headquarters.  She told him that Mr. Hall was scheduling a trip to Mr. Fernicola’s area and asked Mr. Fernicola for suggestions for where and when Mr. Hall should plan to campaign.  Mr. Fernicola recommended a site and the conversation ended.  This conversation also lasted less than five minutes.

I.  Allegations Regarding the Improper Use of Union Resources and Union Time

The protester presented two pieces of evidence to support his allegations that Mr. Hall and Ms. Hoffman used union time and union facilities to campaign.  First, the protester stated that he received an anonymous tip from someone working at the IBT Headquarters.  He was unable to provide the Election Office with any means to verify the tip.  Second, the protester referred to a memorandum written on January 27, 1997, by Jere Nash, Ron Carey’s former campaign manager (“Nash Memo”).  The Nash Memo states that, during the initial 1996 campaign, Ms. Hoffman scheduled Mr. Hall’s trips and that Mr. Hall campaigned extensively for Mr. Carey at the end of the campaign.

Although union members have broad rights to campaign, they do not have the right to campaign during a candidate’s or member’s working hours or on time that is paid for by the union and unions cannot contribute any resources to candidates.  Rules, Article VIII, Section 11; Article XII, Section 1.

The Election Officer has consistently denied protests when the protester offers no evidence to corroborate and support his allegations.  Hoffa, PR-043-LU385-SCE (January 9, 1998); Pike, P-278-LU952-CLA (January 30, 1996).  The protester bears the burden of proof to present evidence that a violation has occurred.  Rules, Article XIV, Section 1. 

In the instant case, Mr. Hall and Ms. Hoffman presented credible evidence, specifically time sheets and receipts, supporting their denials of the allegations.  The protesters did not provide evidence or witnesses to support his allegations.  In light of the direct evidence demonstrating how the April 8, 1998 trip was scheduled and paid for, the Nash Memo has no evidentiary value in this protest.

II.  Allegations Regarding Use of Union Telephones

Both protests included allegations that telephone calls were made from union offices that involved campaign activity.

James P. Hoffa

May 13, 1998

Page 1

Union facilities and equipment may not be used to campaign unless the union is reimbursed at fair market value, all candidates have equal access to the union resources, and the candidates are notified in writing ahead of time of the availability of the resources.  Rules, Article VIII, Section 11(c), Article XII, Section 1(b)(3).  The Election Officer has held that the “use of union telephone equipment to assist in campaigning during work time, even when such activity is not consequential in terms of time, however, violates the Rules.”  Olson, P-172-LU70-CSF (November, 1, 1995) (finding that the inclusion in a campaign press release of the local union telephone number was a violation despite the minimal amount of union resources it expended); Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (August 16, 1996) (finding a violation when an IBT staffer left her office telephone number on a message asking another staffer to return her call to discuss campaign-related matters).

In the instant case, the use of union telephone equipment and union time was minimal.  The investigation revealed that neither the campaign-related conversation involving Mr. Fernicola and Ms. Hoffman nor the conversation involving Mr. Fernicola and Mr. Quinn lasted more than five minutes.  Nevertheless, such use of union resources is impermissible.

Mr. Hall argued that, as a new candidate, he needs to have access to local union officers at their local unions because he does not have home phone numbers and addresses at the current time.  The argument does not overcome the rule against use of union resources.  Under the Rules,  any candidate could contact local union officers at their union offices and request a telephone number outside the union in order to contact them for a campaign-related conversation.

Accordingly, this protest is hereby GRANTED in part; and DENIED in part. 

The Election Officer orders Mr. Hall’s Campaign and Mr. Quinn to cease and desist in calling union officers at local union offices to discuss campaign-related matters.

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

              885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

              New York, NY  10022

              Fax:  (212) 751-4864

James P. Hoffa

May 13, 1998

Page 1

Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC  20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.

Sincerely,

Michael G. Cherkasky

Election Officer

MGC:chh

cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Judith E. Kuhn, Election Office Representative