November 17, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
November 17, 1995
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Peter Mastrandrea, Trustee
Teamsters Local Union 282
2500 Marcus Avenue
Lake Success, NY 11042
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Susan Davis
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Executive Board
Teamsters Local Union 804
34-21 Review Avenue
Long Island City, NY 11101
James P. Hoffa
November 17, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-179-LU804-SCE
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by James P. Hoffa alleging that Local Union 804 and Local Union 282 used union resources to support the candidacy of General President Ron Carey.
Specifically, Mr. Hoffa alleges that raffle tickets were sold to IBT members at a Local Union 804 general membership meeting held on October 22, 1995, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules. Mr. Hoffa attached a photocopy of a raffle ticket produced by the “Committee to Elect Ron Carey in ‘96” (“Committee”) which reads, “Drawing At General Membership Meeting, October 22, 1995.” Mr. Hoffa argues that by announcing that the raffle drawing was to be held at a union meeting, Local Union 804 implied that it had endorsed Mr. Carey’s candidacy. Such a message, Mr. Hoffa contends, also chills the rights of members to support whoever they wish for general president. Mr. Hoffa also presented a letter he received from Local Union 282 Trustee Peter Mastrandrea stating that Local
James P. Hoffa
November 17, 1995
Page 1
Union 282 had agreed to rent its union hall to the Committee after a regularly scheduled Local Union 804 membership meeting on October 22, 1995. Mr. Mastrandrea offered access to
Mr. Hoffa’s campaign on the same terms. He argues that this letter is evidence of a “cover-up” of a Rules violation by Local Union 804 and “implicates Local 282 in this scheme.”
Both local unions deny using union funds or personnel to campaign in support of any candidate. In a letter to the Election Officer, counsel for the Committee stated that the language on the raffle ticket mistakenly stated that the drawing would be held “at” the local union’s general membership meeting, and that it should have read “after.” They contend it was a typographical error that occurred despite a detailed memorandum given by the Carey campaign to Mr. Carey’s supporters concerning the fundraising activities.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
Article VIII, Sections 11(b) states that “[a]n endorsement of a candidate may be made by a Union officer or employee, but solely in his/her individual capacity.” Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules prohibits a labor organization, with limited exceptions, from contributing to a candidate’s campaign and prohibits a candidate from accepting such contributions.[1] The Election Officer’s investigation, however, uncovered no evidence that Local 804 or Local 282 used union resources to support or endorse Mr. Carey’s candidacy.
During the investigation, the Election Office reviewed the materials submitted by
Mr. Hoffa, and interviewed Mr. Hoffa, representatives of Local Union 804, and represen-tatives of Mr. Carey’s campaign. The ticket stub submitted by Mr. Hoffa as well as the memorandum that Mr. Carey’s campaign purports to have distributed to campaign volunteers was also reviewed.
James P. Hoffa
November 17, 1995
Page 1
Counsel for Mr. Carey’s campaign admits that the photocopied ticket stub submitted by Mr. Hoffa fairly depicts the raffle tickets distributed by the campaign, but states that the protested language was a typographical mistake. The Election Officer finds this explanation to be credible. There is no evidence that a raffle occurred at any union meeting. Therefore, no Rules violation occurred.
The Election Officer also finds that the letter from Mr. Mastrandrea to Mr. Hoffa “offering [him] an opportunity to rent the Local 282 Union Hall for thirty (30) minutes after a regularly scheduled Local 804 membership meeting” rather than a “cover-up” was an attempt by Local Union 282 to comply with the Rules. The invitation to Mr. Hoffa was sent four days before Mr. Carey’s campaign was scheduled to use the union hall. Mr. Hoffa does not allege that Mr. Carey’s campaign has not compensated the local union at fair-market value. Nor does he complain that the access offered to him in the letter is insufficient and, thus, violative of Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules.
Finally, the Election Officer determines that the reference on the ticket stub to “general membership meeting” does not constitute an endorsement by the union as defined by the Rules. The Election Officer has consistently held that an endorsement of a candidate is a campaign contribution subject to the Rules. See, Durham, P-651-IBT, aff’d, 91 - Elec.
App. - 183 (September 17, 1991); Scott, P-822-IBT, aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 198 (October 9, 1991); Gebow, P-963-LU677-ENG, aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 212 (October 28, 1991); and Custer, P-1098-LU673-CHI (November 18, 1991). Compare Fischer, P-090-IBT-PNJ/PGH, et seq. (September 7, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 15 (KC) (September 29, 1995) (Conference resolution which expressed support for Mr. Carey as general president is not an endorsement.) The citation to the general membership meeting was in error. Even with this reference, however, there was no endorsement of Mr. Carey by any local union, nor was any local union specifically referred to on the ticket stub. The Election Officer therefore does not find that the ticket stub constituted an endorsement in violation of the Rules.
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hoffa’s protest is DENIED.
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 and Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
James P. Hoffa
November 17, 1995
Page 1
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator
[1]Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) states, in relevant part:
No labor organization, including but not limited to the International Union, Local Unions and all other subordinate Union bodies, whether or not an 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, except as permitted by subparagraphs (2) and (3) below. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by a labor organization and include contributions and use of the organization’s stationery, equipment, facilities and personnel.