Protest Decisions

IN RE: DAN SCOTT,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 397
Issued: June 27, 2001
OEA Case No. PR062613NA

Dan Scott, a member of Local 174 and an elected delegate to the IBT convention, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). Scott alleges that several local and International union officers engaged in campaign speeches supporting IBT General President James P. Hoffa on Sunday, June 24, 2001 at an official IBT meeting for elected delegates of the IBT Parcel and Small Package Trade Division (the "Small Package Division").

Election Administrator representative Jason E. Weidenfeld investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact

On June 6, 2001, Bill Lichtenwald, the Director of the Small Package Division, sent an electronic message through TITAN to "All UPS Local Unions" informing them that a meeting of "convention delegates who represent UPS workers" would be held on Sunday, June 24, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. at Bally's Hotel in Las Vegas. The notice did not discuss the anticipated content of the meeting.

Several officers spoke at the meeting: General President Hoffa; Lichtenwald; Chuck Mack, president of Joint Council 7 and candidate for International Vice President on the Hoffa slate; John Steger, Local 639 vice president and Trustee candidate on the Hoffa slate; Jack Cipriani, Local 391 president and candidate for International Vice President on the Hoffa slate; Ken Wood, president of the Georgia-Florida Conference of Teamsters and International Vice President candidate on the Hoffa slate; Randy Cammack, candidate for re-election as International Vice President on the Hoffa slate; and Ken Hall, Local 175 president, chief negotiator in the UPS strike of 1997, and a supporter of the Hoffa slate.

The protestor and Lichtenwald agree on the alleged purpose of the meeting: to discuss upcoming contract negotiations with UPS and inform members about the plan for such negotiations. The parties, however, have different views about what actually occurred.

The protestor stated that the meeting consisted of little more than campaign rhetoric and amounted to grandstanding for the Hoffa slate. Each speaker, alleges the protestor, repeatedly conveyed the Hoffa slate's campaign message and the view that the Hoffa administration has placed the IBT in better shape than during the previous administration. The protestor stated that the speakers mentioned only one substantive matter relating to the UPS contract, and even that matter was not discussed in detail.

Lichtenwald said that the meeting focused on several substantive matters concerning UPS, including the current administration's preparations and plans for negotiations. He claims the decision to call the meeting before the IBT convention, which began the following morning, was made to take advantage of the rare opportunity to gather in one place so many Teamster leaders employed by UPS.

A large portion of the meeting was videotaped on the IBT's behalf. An IBT representative said that portions of the film would be used in the future to build local union support for negotiations with UPS. Although the film does not focus on the speakers, the audio captured most of the speeches by Hoffa, Lichtenwald, Mack, Cipriani, Wood, and a portion of Cammack's speech. The tape abruptly ends in the middle of his speech. The tape does not contain the speeches of Steger or Hall.

The Election Administrator's representative reviewed the tape. The focus of the Hoffa speech is clearly upcoming negotiations with UPS. Likewise, the speeches by Lichtenwald and Mack discuss upcoming UPS negotiations. Cipriani's speech is directed toward the need for Teamsters to stand together when negotiating with UPS.

Ken Wood's speech begins with a reference to his pride in being a member of the "Hoffa Unity slate [that will] be able to take" a stand against UPS. The remainder of his speech does not mention any slate names or slogans. Rather, Wood speaks repeatedly about the need for members to let their concerns be known.

The final portion caught on film was a segment of Cammack's speech. This speech first mentions that the Teamsters went on strike in 1997 at a time when the union was "fractured." Later, Cammack says that this "great union is more powerful today than it has been in at least ten years." Between these statements, Cammack speaks of various concerns that will arise in negotiations with UPS. These topics, which comprise the vast majority of Cammack's speech, do not reference any elections, past or present; instead, they concern negotiations with UPS.

Analysis

Article VII, Section 5(a)(4) of the Rules is violated when the conduct in question constitutes "campaigning," defined as advocacy for the nomination, election or defeat of a candidate. Caffrey, P47 (October 19, 1995). No violation occurs where the speech relates to a legitimate issue of concern to the membership, even if that issue is also a campaign issue. Crawley, P27 (August 23, 1995).

We find that speeches made at the Small Package Division meeting did not amount to campaigning. The speakers focused on UPS negotiations and did not engage in the widespread campaigning alleged by the protester. Although the protester may have desired greater specificity with regard to certain negotiating matters, this concern does not transform the speeches into campaigning. Except for Wood's single reference to the Hoffa slate, none of the speeches on the videotape referenced any International officer election candidates; and even Wood's reference is insufficient, when viewing the entire speech, to find his speech to be campaigning. Therefore, we DENY the protest.

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Administrator in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:

Kenneth Conboy

Election Appeals Master

Latham & Watkins

Suite 1000

885 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Fax: 212-751-4864

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15^th Street, N.W., 10^th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005 (fax: 202-454-1501), all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

Election Administrator

cc: Kenneth Conboy

2001 EAD 397

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY UPS NEXT DAY AIR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):

[1] So as not to possibly affectnegotiations with UPS, this opinion does not identify each of the alleged topics of discussion at the meeting.