August 25, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
August 25, 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
Thomas W. Leedham
c/o Thomas W. Leedham Campaign Office
Post Office Box 15877
Washington, DC XXX-XX-XXXX
Steve Trossman
Communications Department
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Matt Witt, Director
Communications Department
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
David L. Neigus
Acting 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
James P. Hoffa
August 25, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-149-IBT-EOH [CORRECTED]
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 Tom Leedham, Steve Trossman and the IBT. Mr. Hoffa alleges that the IBT has permitted Mr. Trossman to campaign on behalf of Mr. Leedham using union funds or on union-paid time. Mr. Leedham is a candidate opposing Mr. Hoffa for general president. Mr. Trossman admits that he is employed as IBT Communication Coordinator and that, since April 8, 1998, he has campaigned for Mr. Leedham. Mr. Trossman and the IBT deny, however, that he has campaigned on union-paid time or used union resources.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Counsel David S. Paull.
James P. Hoffa
August 25, 1998
Page 1
The investigation discloses that Mr. Trossman requested an unpaid leave of absence from IBT Director of Human Resources Howard Edwards on April 8, 1998. According to a memo documenting the request, Mr. Trossman was scheduled to return to work “no later than Wednesday, July 8, 1998.” The IBT records show that Mr. Trossman returned from this leave on May 14, 1998. IBT records further show that on June 24 1998, Mr. Trossman requested and received another unpaid leave of absence until September 24, 1998.
During these leave periods, the IBT has permitted Mr. Trossman to participate in the IBT medical and life insurance plans, continuing to pay the costs as if no leave had been requested or taken. The IBT maintains a policy under which employees are continued in these programs at union expense during all approved leaves of absence. Additionally, the following policy governs employees who wish to engage in campaign activity:
IBT employees may take vacation, personal leave, compensatory leave, leave without pay or an unpaid leave of absence to campaign. Employees must obtain such leave in the manner normally provided for under IBT policy. The minimum time period for which any leave may be taken is one hour. Employees must account for vacation and leave time on the applicable time sheets or expense reports customarily used by employees. Sick leave may not be taken in order to campaign. Consistent with past practice, health coverage will be maintained for employees on unpaid leaves of absence of three months or less. (Emphasis original.)
The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(b) preserve for “[A]ll Union officers and employees” the right to “participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to openly support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.” However, the Rules do not permit campaigning which involves the expenditure of union funds. Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules provides that “[N]o candidate or member may campaign during his/her working hours.”
Many union employees, including the protester, have taken some form of leave during the election period in order to campaign. See, Dennis, P-1302-IBT-SEC (December 5, 1996); Hoffa, P-849-IBT-MCN (July 14, 1996); Kornegay, P-209-IBT-SCE (December 12, 1995). Mr. Hoffa contends that, in the case of Mr. Trossman, the payment by the IBT of health and life insurance constitutes an improper use of union funds since these amounts are being paid during a leave of absence taken specifically to campaign.
James P. Hoffa
August 25, 1998
Page 1
The Election Officer determines that the Rules do not require the surrender of health or life insurance benefits by a union employee who engages in campaign activity while on approved leave. Although the Rules generally prohibit campaigning which involves “the expenditure of union funds,” some campaign activity is contemplated where the “union funds” are paid to employees because of certain types of previous or current service. Thus, campaigning during working hours is permitted when “incidental to work” and is also allowed “during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off.” Rules, Article VIII, Section 11 (a). As stated in the Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (Revised November 1997), the performance of services on paid time off does not transform a volunteer’s services into a campaign contribution where the volunteer is already entitled to the benefit. See, Article XII, Section 1(b)(4).
The IBT leave policy is not specifically directed at those employees who wish to campaign, but is generally applicable to all employees who apply for a leave of absence for any reason, “consistent with past practice.” Under the IBT’s policy, an employee’s right to continuous health and life insurance coverage during a leave of absence derives from a generally applicable policy which is based on previous service or current employment and not from any activity which violates the Rules.
On this record, the Election Officer determines that neither the IBT nor Mr. Trossman has violated the Rules in connection with this policy. Providing for health and life insurance coverage for all workers who wish to be absent on approved leave, regardless of its purpose, is not improper merely because the person taking the leave has engaged in campaign activity.
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
August 25, 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