September 10, 1998
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Hoffa Slate
c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.
Baptiste & Wilder
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Patricia G. Franks
1285 Forest Road
Whitehall, PA 18052
Thomas W. Leedham
c/o Thomas W. Leedham Campaign Office
Post Office Box 15877
Washington, DC XXX-XX-XXXX
Diana Kilmury
2612 E. 47th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5S 1C1
CANADA
Dale Irwin
Field Services
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
David L. Neigus
Acting General Counsel
Int’l 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
Frank J. Wsol, Sec.-Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 S. Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
Frank Luckett, Business Agent
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 S. Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
J. B. Masingale, Business Agent
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 S. Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
Carol Miano, Business Agent
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 S. Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. PR-124-IBT-EOH
PR-139-LU710-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Related pre-election protests were filed by James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, the Hoffa Unity Slate, and Patricia Frank, a member of Local Union 773, pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) in response to actions taken at the IBT Women’s Conference held in Cleveland, Ohio, on June 12-14, 1998. James P. Hoffa and the Hoffa Unity Slate filed a pre-election protest (PR-124) against Tom Leedham, a candidate for general president, Diana Kilmury, a candidate for at-large vice president and the Chair of the Teamster Human Rights Commission, Dale Irwin, a staff member of the IBT, and the IBT alleging multiple Rules violations during the IBT Women’s Conference.
Ms. Frank filed a pre-election protest (PR-139) against Frank Luckett, J.B. Masingale, and Carol Miano, all members and business agents of Local Union 710, alleging that Mr. Luckett, Mr. Masingale and Ms. Miano violated the Rules by disrupting a Leedham Campaign fundraiser held in the same hotel as the Women’s Conference. The charged parties responded that the Women’s Conference was a union function and that the fundraiser was therefore held under union auspices in violation of the Rules. Alternatively, they argue that their actions were permissible under the Rules.
The protests were consolidated for the decision because they both arose in the context of the IBT Women’s Conference. These protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
The IBT Women’s Conference was held in the Sheraton City Center Hotel (“hotel”) in Cleveland, Ohio. Approximately 300 people attended. The Conference began with a short plenary session from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Friday, June 12, 1998, in the Grand Ballroom of the hotel. On Saturday, June 13th, the Conference began at 8:00 a.m. with a general session in the Grand Ballroom, which broke up into workshops at 9:30 a.m. The Conference workshops were held throughout the day in the White Room on the 7th floor, the Newman Room on the 7th floor, the Dolder/Hassler Room on the 6th floor, the Fuldheim Room in the Lobby, the Savoy Room on the 6th floor, the Ritz Room on the 6th floor, and the Hanna Room on the 7th floor. The workshops ended at 4:15 p.m. On Saturday night, all IBT Women’s Conference events were held in the Grand Ballroom. The program began at 6:30 p.m. and included cocktails, dinner and speakers starting at 8:00 p.m.
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
On Sunday, June 14th, there was a general session at 9:00 a.m. in the Grand Ballroom. At 10:15 a.m. the attendees went into workshops using the same rooms as on Saturday. At 12:15 p.m. a closing general session was held in the Grand Ballroom. The Conference adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Sunday, June 14, 1998.
The IBT devised a policy on campaigning at the Conference. They disseminated a written copy to the participants and read the policy at the beginning of Saturday’s general session. The policy stated:
[I]t is the policy of the IBT Human Rights Commission to designate the Teamster Women’s Conference . . . a politically neutral event. Campaigning for or against any candidate or group of candidates in the International Union officer election will not be allowed in any areas used for the conference. In particular, there should be no displays of campaign material, signs, banners or the like, and there should be no distribution of campaign literature in the areas where the conference is taking place: the Registration area; the East Hallway, where the exhibit tables are located; and any room in which a workshop or other official meeting is held. However, participants are permitted to wear items of clothing or campaign paraphernalia such as hats, buttons and t-shirts if they so choose.
Campaigning occurred in the hotel during the Conference. Mr. Leedham held a campaign function in the hotel at 9:00 p.m. Saturday night in the Dolder/Hassler Room, after the only nighttime official Conference event which took place in the hotel grand ballroom. Mr. Leedham’s campaign rented the room for use at a time when the IBT was not using it. Mr. Leedham, Ms. Kilmury and his supporters engaged in other campaigning during the Conference. They sold Leedham campaign t-shirts from a hotel room; they distributed leaflets for the Leedham campaign event throughout the hotel; and they allowed the hotel to advertise the Leedham campaign event on hotel easels and video monitors.
I. ALLEGATIONS THAT THE WOMEN’S CONFERENCE WAS ORGANIZED TO PROMOTE THE CANDIDACY OF MR. LEEDHAM AND MS. KILMURY
The protester alleged that the Conference was orchestrated and conducted to promote the candidacies of Mr. Leedham and Ms. Kilmury.
The IBT began planning its annual Women’s Conference in late January, 1998. Mr. Leedham was not involved in the initial organizational meeting; Ms. Kilmury organized the meeting and was involved in the initial planning. The IBT signed contracts for room rentals and
catering in March, 1998. The Conference was publicized in the March and April/May issues of
the Teamster magazine.
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
All of the IBT planning activity occurred before Mr. Leedham’s announcement of his candidacy for general president on May 22, 1998. Documents submitted by the IBT indicate that Mr. Leedham did not play a role in organizing the Conference.
Ms. Kilmury stated that she personally took steps to encourage the participation of Mr. Hoffa’s supporters in the Conference. She stated she contacted Central Region Vice-Presidents Phil Young and Patrick Flynn, and Chuck Mack, a candidate on the Hoffa Unity Slate, to encourage their participation. According to Ms. Kilmury, they indicated to her that their members were not interested in the Conference. Dottie Malinsky, another Central Region Vice-President and Hoffa supporter, was given a place on the program and urged to attend. Supporters of slates other than Mr. Leedham’s, specifically a supporter from the Metz Slate and Robert Spearman, a candidate for international vice-president at large, both were on the program. Ms. Kilmury stated that the intent of the planners was to keep the Conference non-political and that they worked towards that end.
Pursuant to the Rules, the protester has the burden to present evidence that a violation has occurred. Rules, Article XIV, Section 1. Mr. Hoffa presented no evidence supporting the allegation that the Conference was orchestrated to promote Mr. Leedham’s and Ms. Kilmury’s candidacies. Ms. Kilmury and the IBT presented evidence that the Conference was organized without Mr. Leedham and prior to his candidacy. Ms. Kilmury presented additional, uncontested evidence that she worked to insure that the Conference would be non-political by encouraging supporters of the Hoffa Slate, along with other slates, to attend.
II. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO THE IBT RULES ON CAMPAIGNING DURING THE CONFERENCE
The protester alleged that the IBT’s policy on campaigning during the Conference violated both Article VIII, Sections 11(a) and (d) of the Rules by restricting members’ preexisting rights to campaign outside of a union hall and Article VIII, Sections 5(a) and 11(c) of the Rules for discriminating against candidates by not giving prior notice to all candidates of their right to campaign in the building in which a union meeting was held. In support of the violation of Article VIII, Section 5(a), the protester cited the precedent of Reynolds, PR-076-LU104-RMT (May 6, 1998), in which a union was found to have discriminated against candidates by allowing a supporter of one candidate to campaign inside the union hall where candidates traditionally had not been allowed to campaign.
As set out above, the IBT’s policy prohibited campaigning in hotel areas used by the Conference, specifically the Registration area, the East Hallway, and any room in which a
meeting or workshop was held. Participants were allowed to wear campaign paraphernalia during the Conference.
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
The IBT stated that its policy banning campaigning was limited to areas in the hotel used by the IBT during the time the IBT was using those areas. The IBT stated that it had no control over areas in the hotel it was not using and, therefore, had no authority to ban or permit campaigning in those areas. The IBT argued that Reynolds was not applicable because that involved campaigning inside a union hall, not in a public hotel. Instead, the IBT cited Hoffa, 96 - Elec. App. - 244 (KC) (October 3, 1996), and Hoffa, P-1009-IBT-CSF (October 17, 1996), for the Election Officer’s approval of campaigning within a hotel during an IBT conference as long as the campaigning was outside the conference areas.
In Hoffa, P-925-IBT-MGN (September 20, 1996), aff’d 96 - Elec. App. - 244 (KC) (October 3, 1996), the Election Officer held that, under the Rules, campaigning outside an official union event cannot be restrained. Rules, Article VIII, Section 11(a). See Hoffa, P-1009-IBT-CSF (date). Therefore, in order for its policy to comply with the Rules, the IBT had to restrict campaigning in the areas in use by the Conference during official union events, which it did.
Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4) of the Rules states that, “[a] local union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor of or against any candidate in conjunction with its meetings or other wise.” The Election Officer previously held that it does not violate the equal access provisions of the Rules for candidates to attend official union meetings or functions if campaigning does not take place. Hoffa, 925-IBT-MNG (September 20, 1996) (citing Carbone, P-887-LU313-PNW (September 12, 1996)). Further, if campaigning does not occur in the meeting or event, Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4) is not invoked and no violation of the Rules occurs even if some candidates do not have prior knowledge about an event. Id.
The IBT Conference policy explicitly prohibited campaigning in the meetings and official events. The policy affected all candidates equally by barring all campaigning at Conference events, removing the possibility of discrimination against any one candidate. That standard, in fact, complies with the Rules.
III. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO THE LEEDHAM FUNDRAISER
On Saturday, June 13, 1998, Mr. Leedham had a fundraiser in the Dolder-Hassler room of the hotel. The event was held at 9:00 p.m., at a time when the room was not in use by the Conference and after the events for the Conference had concluded for the day. Simone Sagovac, a Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”) staff member, originally reserved the room and secured the reservation with a TDU credit card, but the Leedham Slate paid for the room rental. The Leedham Slate provided a copy of the invoice and check used to pay for the room rental to
the Election Office.
Around 9:00 p.m., Lillian Morisky, a member of Local Union 407, began the event with a brief statement. Her statement, written by Ms. Kilmury, was the following:
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Tom Leedham Slate fundraiser. My name is Lillian Morisky and I would like to make sure everybody is aware that this is a campaign event paid for by the Leedham campaign and is not part of the IBT Women’s conference.
After reading the statement, Ms. Morisky introduced Ms. Kilmury.
As Ms. Kilmury began to speak, a group of Hoffa supporters sitting in the front of the room began to interrupt. The group of Hoffa supporters included Ms. Miano, Mr. Luckett, Mr. Masingale, Kathy Wilson, Romelle Schneider, members of Local Union 710, and Kim Wilgus, a member of Local Union 52. Ms. Wilgus gave the following oral description of the events:
We were all sitting up front, and Diana Kilmury started to speak. She began with how the Teamsters built Las Vegas. I told Diana Kilmury that what she’s talking about occurred in the past, and I wasn’t responsible for the past, it was a long time ago, and I got told that if I didn’t like it, I should get out. I got booed by others who were there. The others from our group also made some comments, but I don’t know exactly who. They were disputing some of the things Kilmury said.
[Ms. Kilmury] proceeded to tell us that this was a function paid for by the Tom Leedham campaign; they won’t tolerate any interruptions; we could wait until the end of her speech and then talk. We didn’t do that! She started talking about the union being run by a fair and honest man, and there were comments from our group asking where’s the money that Ron Carey stole. She stopped talking and said we needed to get out. . . . [P]eople in my group were also saying things too, and they were getting booed and hollered at by the others. They [the event organizers] called hotel security, and [the hotel security] came in and we were removed. We were told to get out and we hemmed and hawed around at first and didn’t leave. But eventually we did leave.
On the way out, Dale Irwin, a little girl who works for the IBT, stopped me. She said, “do you have to weigh 400 pounds to be a Hoffa supporter?” . . . I told her that if you want to finish this, lets
finish this outside. She said, “No, James P. Hoffa you’ll kill me.” I said, “Oh, yeah, probably.” I also said, “I guarantee you, your little cut mouth will never say that again.” I know I should not have said that, and I apologize for that. I’m heavy, but I don’t weigh anything like 400 pounds.
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
The other of the Hoffa supporters described their behavior as more tame and less
disruptive. Mr. Luckett admitted that he interrupted Ms. Kilmury with questions. Mr. Masingale stated that he made no disruptive comments during the event but that hotel security requested that he leave anyway.
Hotel security escorted Mr. Luckett, Mr. Masingale, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Miano and Ms. Wilgus out of the event. Three other Hoffa supporters who had not been disruptive asked if they could stay as long as they did not interrupt. Ms. Kilmury told them they were welcome if they would listen. Those women stayed without further incident. The incident involving the Hoffa supporters lasted approximately 20 minutes.
Mr. Hoffa alleged that Mr. Leedham’s use of a room that was also used by the IBT Women’s Conference violates the Rules and the IBT policy. The IBT states that the policy excludes campaigning from areas used by the Conference during the time that events are ongoing. The IBT states that it only controls hotel areas for the times they rent those areas, and, when they do not have control over an area, the area would be open for anyone else to use.
The IBT Women’s Conference had not rented the Dolder/Hassler room for the time it was used by Mr. Leedham. Indeed, the only Conference event that night was in the grand ballroom; the Dolder/Hassler room had no Conference activity in it at the time of the Leedham fundraiser. The Leedham Campaign rented the room at commercial rates. The Leedham Campaign did not violate the Rules by holding a campaign event in that room when it was not being used by the IBT Conference.
Ms. Franks alleged that the Hoffa supporters who disrupted the Leedham Campaign event violated the Rules by disrupting members who were involved in campaign activity. The charged parties alleged that they were rudely treated and improperly ejected from the Leedham Campaign event. Ms. Wilgus complained specifically about Ms. Irwin’s comment about her weight.
The Rules fundamentally protect a broad right of free association under Article VIII, Section 11(a). The Election Officer has found that the right to freely associate includes the provision that “members have the right to associate with like-minded members and to exclude other if they choose.” Rudolph, P-861-TDU-PNW (August 29, 1996) at 4. See also, Furst, PR-169-LU544-NCE (date); Davies, P-1062-LU213-CAN (October 29, 1996); Pollack, P-008-LU732-NYC (October 29, 1990), aff’d, 90 - Elec. App. - 8 (November 7, 1990). Campaign activities which to do not qualify as general union functions are essentially private and may be
attended upon consent of the sponsors.
The Leedham Slate had the right to admit or exclude participants from their campaign
event. They paid to use a private space, a room in the hotel, when it was not in use by the Conference. The event held by the Leedham Slate was separate from the Conference and was held after the official Conference events had concluded. The Leedham Slate rightfully could
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
have excluded Hoffa supporters from the event at the beginning and had the right to eject Hoffa supporters, or anyone else, throughout the course of the event.
The Rules are tolerant of “the natural discourse that arises as a result of campaign-related activities,” even when heated. Furst, P-949-LU430-PNJ (October 9, 1996); Mee, P-1153-LU853-CSF (November 13, 1996) (“nasty exchange” between Carey and Hoffa supporters which was “heated and emotional did not violate the Rules). The Rules prohibit intimidation and retaliation, and violations have been found when members engage in physically or verbally aggressive behavior that threatens actual harm. Rules, Article VIII, Section 11(f). Rudolph, P-861-TDU-PNW (August 29, 1996); Smith, P-600-LU150-CSF (April 30, 1996) (finding remark “you’ll be taken out of here in a body bag” to violate the Rules).
No evidence has been presented to indicate that either the Leedham or Hoffa supporters made any statements or took any actions that threatened actual harm. Although the Hoffa supporters initially resisted the event organizers’ requests that they leave, they did comply after security was called and could have been initially excluded from the event. Regarding the exchange between Ms. Irwin and Ms. Wilgus, Ms. Irwin’s remarks were nothing more than “nasty” discourse. If anyone approached threatening physical harm, it was Ms. Wilgus. However, given the situation, her comments did not rise to the level of threatening serious bodily harm.
IV. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO OTHER CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY DURING THE CONFERENCE
Mr. Hoffa alleged numerous violations of the Rules and IBT election campaign policy by the Leedham and Ken Hall campaigns and argues that the IBT is responsible for those violations.
A. Allegations Related to Distribution of Campaign Literature
The protester alleged the following: 1) on Friday night, as people were registering for the conference, Leedham buttons were being distributed in the elevator lobby; 2) on Friday night, leaflets for Ken Hall, formerly a candidate for general president, were being distributed near the area where union paraphernalia was being sold; 3) on Saturday, around 4:15 p.m., Ms. Kilmury handed out invitations to the Leedham campaign event in the elevator lobby; 4) on Saturday, between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., Ms. Kilmury was handing out invitations to the Leedham campaign event on the main floor lobby; and 5) invitations to the Leedham rally were scattered throughout the hotel, on the sixth floor in the elevator lobby, in the main lobby, in ladies’
Representatives of the Leedham campaign, who attended the Conference, and Ms. Kilmury did not recall all of the alleged events. However, they assert that, even if each of the
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
events occurred as the protester alleged, they did not violate the Rules or the IBT Conference policy because the literature was not in the Conference areas.
The IBT policy properly allowed members to campaign in hotel areas not in use by the Conference. None of the campaigning alleged above violated either the Rules or IBT campaign policy.
B. Allegations Related to Advertising of the Leedham Campaign Event
The protester alleged that advertising of the Leedham campaign event violated the Rules and the IBT Conference campaign policy because easels advertising the Leedham campaign event were placed in the elevator lobby on the sixth floor, in the main floor lobby, and the entrance to the parking garage. The protester also alleged that the fact that the video listing the hotel’s schedule of events in the lobby and the guest rooms included a listing of the Leedham campaign event was improper.
The Leedham campaign admitted that all of the advertising occurred as alleged, with the exception that they had no knowledge of an easel in the parking garage entrance. They stated that the advertising was provided by the hotel as part of the room rental. They also asserted that none of the signs were in locations in use by the IBT and, therefore, they did not violate any Rules or the IBT policy.
None of the advertising was in locations used by the IBT Conference. As such, the advertising for the Leedham campaign event was permissible.
C. Allegations Regarding Solicitations for the TDU and the Leedham Campaign
The protester alleged that Carolyn Robinson, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 315 and a presenter at a conference session, solicited the Conference participants to join TDU by recommending that participants obtain a copy of the TDU UPS logbook. TDU responded that the UPS logbook is a legitimate, non-election related item that TDU encourages union officials to recommend to members. TDU also asserted that the Election Officer previously held that TDU has a right to engage in non-election related activity, of which the sale and distribution of such literature as the UPS logbook is part.
The Election Officer held in Hoffa, PR-063-LU2000-NCE (April 3, 1998), that, because TDU engaged in activities outside of the election, neither membership solicitation nor its literature falls under the Rules. In the Hoffa protest, the Election Officer found that a union publication, 2000 Times, containing an article on TDU and a solicitation for members to join TDU did not violate the Rules because the article was not election related. Hoffa, PR-063-
LU2000-NCE (April 3, 1998). Here, Ms. Robinson’s encouraging Conference participants to obtain non-election related TDU literature does not violate the Rules.
James P. Hoffa
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 1998
Page 1
The protester also alleged that supporters of the Leedham Campaign were improperly soliciting contributions through the sale of paraphernalia. On Saturday, the protester asserted that members were soliciting sales of Leedham t-shirts near the exhibit tables by directing participants to a hotel room from which the t-shirts were being sold. On Sunday, the protester alleged that members were selling Leedham t-shirts in the elevator lobby near the exhibit area.
TDU admits that, on Saturday, Al Adams, a member of Local Union 407, stationed himself in the elevator lobby wearing a Leedham t-shirt. Mr. Adams’s admitted goal was to sell the t-shirts; however, he stated he did not approach anyone. Instead, Mr. Adams waited for people to approach him and initiate conversations about his shirt, at which time he would ask if the people wanted to buy a shirt. He would then direct them to the room in which they were being sold. Mr. Adams stated the only time he went to the exhibit hall was when people he knew called him over. TDU stated that Mr. Adams was not standing in the elevator lobby on Sunday as he was on Saturday, but believes that the protester’s witness may have seen Mr. Adams bringing down some t-shirts to give to another member.
The Leedham Campaign asserted that Mr. Adams did not improperly solicit contributions. They argued that Mr. Adams was not engaged in solicitation because he did not approach any Conference participants; he merely engaged in individual conversations with those who approached him. Additionally, the argue that Mr. Adams stood in hotel areas that were not in use by the IBT Conference and, therefore, he was in areas where campaign activity was permissible.
The Election Officer finds that Mr. Adams was not soliciting for the Leedham Campaign in an area in which campaign activity was prohibited. The protester did not assert that Mr. Adams was in areas that were occupied by the Conference, only that he was near those areas. Mr. Adams had a right under the Rules to engage in campaign activity outside of the Conference areas. Mr. Adams admitted he walked into Conference areas wearing he Leedham Campaign t-shirt; however, the wearing of campaign paraphernalia was specifically permitted by IBT policy.
Accordingly, the protests are 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
Patricia G. Franks
September 10, 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:mk
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator