November 4, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
John Metz
November 4, 1998
Page 1
John Metz Slate
c/o Jim Smith
2833 Cottman Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19149
Barbara Bright
C.O.P.E. Director
Greater St. Louis Labor Council
1401 Hampton Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63139
John Fisher, President
Teamsters Local Union 600
9041 Riverview Drive
St. Louis, MO 63137
William A. Ferris, President
Teamsters Local Union 682
5730 Elizabeth Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63110
Joseph A. Galli, Sec.-Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 688
300 S. Grand Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63103
George O. Suggs, Esq.
Wilburn & Suggs
1015 Locust
Suite 818
St. Louis, MO 63101
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
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Robert Kelly
Greater St. Louis Labor Council
1401 Hampton Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63139
William Jones
Human Resources Director
Schnucks Supermarkets
11420 Lackland Road
St. Louis, MO 63146
Chris Raineri
Human Resources Director
Raineri Building Material Inc.
6351 Knox Industrial Drive
St. Louis, MO 63139
John Perman
Terminal Manager
CF MotorFreight
8500 N. Hall Street
St. Louis, MO 63144
John Metz
November 4, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. PR-283-JC13-EOH
PR-285-JC13-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Two related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Local Union 600, Local Union 682, Local Union 688, the Greater St. Louis Labor Council (“Labor Council”), Schnucks Supermarkets (“Schnucks”), Ranieri Ready Mix (“Ranieri”) and Consolidated Freightways (“Consolidated”). John Metz, a candidate for general president, alleged in PR-283 that “employer and local union assets” were improperly used because several employer vehicles displayed campaign signs supporting the candidacy of James P. Hoffa, an opposing candidate for general president, at the St. Louis Labor Day parade.
Mr. Metz further alleges that certain local unions permitted members of their “respective delegations to distribute Hoffa stickers to the crowd.” David L. Dethrow, a member of Local Union 688, made similar allegations in PR-285.
Schnucks, Ranieri, and Consolidated all respond that the display of campaign material on their vehicles violated company no-solicitation policies and the stickers were removed as soon as discovered. The Labor Council denies permitting, encouraging or supporting the placement of political stickers on parade vehicles. Local Unions 600 and 688 deny placing or encouraging the placement of the stickers on the vehicles. Local Union 682 admits that one of its representatives was involved in the placement of some stickers to some vehicles and knowingly violated the Rules. All three local unions deny allowing or encouraging any of their representatives to distribute Hoffa stickers to the crowd along the parade route. The Hoffa campaign denies knowledge of or involvement in the display or distribution of the campaign stickers.
Due to the similar nature of the allegations, the protests were consolidated for decision by the Election Officer. The protests were investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.
The St. Louis Labor Day parade took place on September 7, 1998. There is no dispute as to the presence of Hoffa campaign stickers on a number of employer-owned vehicles that participated in the parade. A number of witnesses stated that they observed Hoffa stickers on trucks belonging to Schnucks, Ranieri, and Consolidated. Members of Local Union 688 requested the use of the vehicle(s) from Schnucks and accompanied the vehicle(s) during the parade. Members of Local Union 682 requested the use of the vehicle(s) from Ranieri and accompanied the vehicle(s) during the parade. Members of Local Union 600 requested the use of the vehicle(s) from Consolidated and accompanied the vehicle(s) during the parade. All three employers admitted that the stickers had been placed on their vehicles, but state it was without their knowledge or permission.
During the investigation, the Election Officer determined the following to be true with respect to each the above-named employers:
John Metz
November 4, 1998
Page 1
1) They maintain policies prohibiting the placement of stickers on employer property;
2) They require their employees to adhere to the no-sticker policy;
3) They allowed some of their vehicles to be driven in the Labor Day parade;
4) They had not seen any Hoffa stickers on any of the vehicles prior to the employer vehicles leaving the employer facilities on the morning of the Labor Day parade;
5) When they discovered stickers on the vehicles returning from the Labor Day parade, the stickers were immediately removed; and
6) No agents of any of the named employers placed any of the stickers on the vehicles that had been donated to the Labor Day parade.
Bob Kelly, president of the Labor Council, stated that the Labor Council explicitly discourages any political activity during Labor Day parades. The Labor Council’s parade regulations expressly prohibit the distribution or display of internal union political material before, during, or after the parade, along the parade route, or in the parade picnic area. According to Mr. Kelly, his staff of parade marshals are instructed to make him aware of any campaign material but are not supposed to attempt to unilaterally remove them. He stated that during this year’s parade, he himself only saw political stickers attached to individual’s clothing, not to any vehicles and that none of the 70-odd parade marshals reported any “overt campaigning”.
The evidence failed to establish any conduct of agents or representatives of Local Unions 600 or 688 in the placement of the Hoffa stickers on the employer vehicles. Local Union 682 admitted to the Election Office Representative that an unnamed representative of Local Union 682 had been responsible for the placement of some Hoffa stickers on some employer vehicles prior to or during the parade. Neither protester presented any evidence showing that any representatives from any of the three local unions were involved in or responsible for the distribution of campaign stickers while walking in the Labor Day parade.
Article VIII, Section 11 of the Rules provides that “All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to . . . support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.” However, the Rules strictly prohibit IBT members from appropriating union or employer property in order to make personal campaign statements. Specifically, nothing in Article VIII or any other article of the Rules authorizes members to affix campaign material to employer-owned vehicles.
John Metz
November 4, 1998
Page 1
Affixing campaign material to employer-owned vehicles may result in improper contributions by those employers to the Hoffa campaign, as well as supplying the false impression that the employers endorse one candidate, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules. That Section specifically states the following:
[N]o employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer and include contributions or use of employer stationery, equipment, facilities and personnel.
Employers are strictly liable for such a violation and can be directed to remove the campaign materials and post a notice. However, if an employer can show it maintains and strictly enforces a policy prohibiting the placement of such materials on company property (including the regular inspection of such property for such materials and the removal of any material found) and if no employer agent was involved in the violation of the employer policy, the Election Officer will not find the employer liable for the violation. See Meadows, PR-108-LU916-NYC (July 8, 1998) and Iund, PR-289-LU638-NCE (October 28, 1998). Applying this analysis, the Election Officer finds that Schnucks, Rainieri and Consolidated are not liable for the violation of the Rules since they maintain no solicitation policies which prohibit the placement of campaign stickers on their property; they strictly enforce the no solicitation policies; and, the campaign stickers were removed immediately upon discovering them.
Furthermore, no evidence was found showing any involvement of the Labor Council or Local Unions 600 and 688 in affixing campaign stickers to the employer vehicles. With respect to Local Union 682, however, the Election Officer finds that a representative of Local Union 682 knowingly violated the Rules by participating in the placement of campaign material on employer vehicles.
Finally, the Election Officer finds that there was insufficient evidence to establish that certain local unions permitted members of their “respective delegations to distribute Hoffa stickers to the crowd.”
Accordingly, the protest as it relates to the alleged distribution of Hoffa stickers to the crowd is DENIED in all respects. The protest as it relates to the placement of campaign stickers on employer vehicles is DENIED as to employers Schnucks, Ranieri and Consolidated, the Labor Council and Local Unions 600 and 688. The protest against Local Union 682 is
GRANTED with respect to the improper use of employer assets by posting campaign stickers on employer vehicles in violation of the Rules.
John Metz
November 4, 1998
Page 1
When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
Consequently, the Election Officer orders the following:
1) Representatives and officers of Local Union 682 shall immediately cease and desist from improperly utilizing employer assets in the Rerun Election;
2) By November 10, 1998, the president of Local Union 682 shall sign and post the attached Notice to All Members of Local Union 682 on all employer bulletin boards where members of Local Union 682 are employed, as well as, on all bulletin boards at the the local union office(s);
3) By November 10, 1998, a principal officer from Local Union 682 shall submit a signed affidavit to the Election Office detailing compliance with this decision.
An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. In re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).
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:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
John Metz
November 4, 1998
Page 1
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, 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
cc: Kenneth C. Conboy, Election Appeals Master
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION 682
In a recent decision, the Election Officer found that a representative of Local Union 682 knowingly violated the Election Rules by placing campaign stickers of a candidate in the International Officers Rerun Election on employer-owned vehicle(s) driven in the recent Labor Day parade.
Article VIII, Section 11 of the Rules provides that “All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to . . . support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.” However, the Rules strictly prohibit IBT members from appropriating union or employer property in order to make personal campaign statements. Specifically, nothing in Article VIII or any other article of the Rules authorizes members to affix campaign material to employer-owned vehicles.
Representatives and officers of Local Union 682 have been ordered to cease and desist from such activity. The placement of the stickers does not constitute an endorsement by Local Union 682 of any one candidate in the Rerun Election.
______________________________
Local Union 682
This is an official notice which must remain posted until December 3, 1998. This notice must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.
Approved by Michael G. Cherkasky
IBT Election Officer