November 16, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Brian A. Rothman
November 16, 1998
Page 1
Brian A. Rothman
9700 69th Street North
Pinellas Park, FL 33782
Janice Beal
Human Resources Director
Group Technologies Corporation
10901 Malcolm McKinley Drive
Tampa, FL 33612
Sue Yocum
17800 Chorvat Avenue
Spring Hill, FL 34610
Tom Leedham Campaign Office
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
Brian A. Rothman
November 16, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Officer Case No. PR-381-LU79-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Brian Rothman, a member of Local Union 79 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 Sue Yocum, a fellow member of Local Union 79. The protester alleged that Ms. Yocum utilized employer resources by mailing Tom Leedham “Rank and File Power” Slate (“Leedham Slate”) campaign literature in envelopes imprinted with the employer’s logo and address, in violation of the Rules. Ms. Yocum admitted using the employer envelopes, but stated that the envelopes had been discarded by the employer due to a change in the company logo.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.
Brian A. Rothman
November 16, 1998
Page 1
Ms. Yocum works for Group Technologies Corporation (“Group Technologies”), located in Tampa, Florida. According to Human Resources Manager Linda Wilson, in approximately October 1997, the company changed the logo and purchased new envelopes and letterhead. While the normal company practice is to destroy all old letterhead and envelopes, in this case numerous envelopes bearing the old logo were stored in the “surplus area” of the facility. A number of Group Technologies employees subsequently removed the surplus envelopes for their own personal use. The company allowed, but never officially authorized this practice.
The protester provided the Election Office with a copy of the envelope in question. The logo of Group Technologies, as well as their address, is clearly visible in the upper left-hand corner of the envelope. Ms. Yocum had crossed out the company information and had written in her own name and address. No Group Technologies funds were utilized to pay for the mailing of the campaign literature.
Article XII, Section 1(a) and 1(b)(1) of the Rules prohibit an employer from making any contributions to the campaign of a candidate for International office. The Rules define “campaign contributions” to include “any direct or indirect contribution of money or other thing of value where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence the election of a candidate.” Rules, Definitions, at 5. As stated in the Election Officer’s Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (Revised November 1997), such contributions can include any goods, compensated services or any material things of value. The contribution of anything in value will be deemed a “campaign contribution.”
The envelopes were freely available and were not provided to Ms. Yocum for the purpose of supporting a candidate in the International Officer Rerun Election. They were considered to be of no value to the company. Therefore, the Election Officer does not find that Group Technologies improperly contributed to the Leedham Slate. However, the Election Officer does find that Ms. Yocum’s action in utilizing an employer envelope to mail out campaign literature creates the perception that Group Technologies supports a candidate, in violation of the Rules.
Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED.
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.
Here, the violation is clearly minor. Therefore, the Election Officer orders Ms. Yocum to
cease and desist from improperly utilizing employer assets in the International Officer Rerun Election.
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).
Brian A. Rothman
November 16, 1998
Page 1
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
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 Conboy, Election Appeals Master