December 2, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Jim Ayers
December 2, 1998
Page 1
Jim Ayers, Vice President
Teamsters Local Union 486
P.O. Box 5925
Saginaw, MI XXX-XX-XXXX
David Dunning
7788 Trinklein Road
Saginaw, MI 48609
David Robinson, Sec.-Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 486
P.O. Box 5925
Saginaw, MI XXX-XX-XXXX
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
Jim Ayers
December 2, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-417-LU486-NCE
Gentlemen:
Jim Ayres, a member of Local Union 486, and Vice President and Business Representative for that Local Union, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against David Dunning, a member of Local Union 486. The protestor contends that Mr. Dunning sent a campaign mailing for Tom Leedham, a candidate for general president in such a way that it appeared to have been sent by Local 486, using union funds. He contends further that, by mailing the campaign leaflets to “Current Union Steward” at each of several employers, Mr. Dunning improperly involved employers in the campaign process, resulting in employer contributions in those cases where employers transmitted the mailing to union stewards. Mr. Dunning, while not denying that he sent the mailing, argues that the mailing was not misleading and that mailing to stewards at their places of work does not violate the Rules.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
Jim Ayers
December 2, 1998
Page 1
Protestor Jim Ayres states that, during the week of November 18, he received a number of telephone messages from Local 486 member-stewards, complaining about a mailing they had received. He submitted a sample envelope, with its contents, during the course of the investigation.
Envelopes used in the mailing show the numerals “486" in large numbers in the upper left-hand corner of the envelope. In a smaller , but still clearly readable font, “Teamsters Local 486 members” appears below the numerals. The next two lines bear Mr. Dunning’s return address, which is different than the return address of the Local Union. Mr. Dunning’s name does not appear on the envelope or on the documents contained in the envelope. Inside the envelope were two campaign leaflets for Tom Leedham, each bearing the notation “Please post.” The envelope was addressed to “Current Union Steward” and mailed to a number of companies whose employees are represented by Local Union 486.
According to the protestor, many members complained about the mailing, having concluded from the envelope’s return address that Local Union 486's dues money was being used to promote the Leedham candidacy. Mr. Ayres described the complaints as “Why are you spending my dues money sending this literature? . . . Don’t tell me you didn’t do it. I’ve got the return address right here.” The investigation confirmed that several members did conclude that the mailing had originated from Local Union 486, and did complain to the Local Union.
The protestor admits that the Local 486 logo is physically dissimilar to the logo on the mailing sent by Mr. Dunning, but the protestor argues that just having the numerals “486" on an envelope addressed to “current union steward” was enough to convince the recipients that the contents originated from Local Union 486.
Mr. Dunning asserts that the mailing clearly identified the sender as “members of” Local 486 and used a return address different from the Local Union’s address. He emphasizes the significant design differences between his logo and the Local Union’s logo. Further,
Mr. Dunning argues that mailing to union members at their place of work does not violate the Rules. Accordingly, Mr. Dunning argues that the mailing was not misleading or improper.
There is no question that the use of the numerals “486" on Mr. Dunning’s envelope may have confused some of the members of the Local Union. However, the differences between Mr. Dunning’s envelope and the Local Union’s stationery are significant, and there is no evidence that Mr. Dunning intended to mislead the membership. The fact that some members may have misread the return address or been confused because they did not read it carefully does not make the mailing itself violative.
Jim Ayers
December 2, 1998
Page 1
Further, with respect to mailing of campaign literature to employees at their workplace, the Election Officer agrees that it is a better practice for members to deliver campaign material personally for distribution or posting. However, the Election Officer has previously found that addressing campaign material to members at their place of work does not, without further evidence of employer involvement, violate the Rules. Barnett, PR-129-LU705-NCE (September 1, 1998).
For the reasons set forth above, 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
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
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator