April 3, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Daniel Stefanski, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 726
300 S. Ashland Avenue, Room 206
Chicago, IL 60607
Hoffa-Hogan ‘96 Slate
c/o Anthony S. Fiori
5917 S. Nashville
Chicago, IL 60638
Re: Election Office Case No. P-642-LU726-CHI
Gentlemen:
Daniel E. Stefanski, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 726, 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 the Hoffa-Hogan ‘96 slate, a slate of candidates for delegate from Local Union 726. The protester alleges that members of this slate distributed campaign literature that defaced a Notice of Election required to be posted pursuant to the Rules. Additionally, the protester alleges that the leaflet appears to be on Local Union 726 letterhead, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules.
Anthony Fiori, a member of the Hoffa-Hogan ‘96 slate, denied that the slate had anything to do with the literature.
Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos investigated this protest.
Daniel Stefanski
April 3, 1996
Page 1
This protest is directed at a campaign leaflet which appears to be an altered Notice of Delegate Election and List of Nominated Candidates for Local Union 726. The local union was required to post the Notice of Election pursuant to Article II, Section 7(d) of the Rules. The “Notice” appears to be on union letterhead. It has been altered by a box being drawn around the names of the Hoffa-Hogan ‘96 slate. Within the box, the names of the candidates have also been altered. The typeface of the names on the slate has been magnified and changed to boldface type. The workplace of each candidate on the Hoffa-Hogan ‘96 slate has been added to the “Notice.” The words, “The Right Choice!” are superimposed onto the bottom side of the box around the Hoffa-Hogan slate in larger type.
The protester reports that he found the leaflet at O’Hare Airport and at the State of Illinois Department of Transportation Emergency Traffic Patrol yard on Normal Street in Chicago, both of which are work sites employing members of Local Union 726. There is no evidence as to who was responsible for the leaflet or its distribution.
The protester invokes Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules, which provides in pertinent part, “The use of the Union’s official stationery with the Union’s name, insignia or mark by Union members, in connection with the exercise of rights under the Rules, is permitted.” However, here, the protested document is campaign literature and as such, the document is protected. The protested leaflet is similar to a “sample ballot” which has been altered to promote a candidacy. Both documents are altered versions of documents required by the Rules. The principles protecting the use of a sample ballot as campaign literature apply here. In Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991), the Election Officer stated:
The Rules . . . secure for all candidates the freedom to fully exercise political rights through solicitations, support and the distribution of campaign literature. The Election Officer has consistently applied the Rules so as to safeguard the exercise of these political rights. The Rules neither prohibit nor regulate the content of campaign literature.
The Election Officer has found that sample ballots are “not deceptive or misleading because the alterations . . . clearly transformed the draft ballot into campaign literature.” See New house, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996); also Antoskiewicz, P-452-LU507-CLE (February 28, 1996). Here, the plain alterations to the mock Notice of Election demonstrate that the leaflet is not the official notice. Beyond that concern:
[T]he Election Officer’s duty is to ‘insure fair, honest, open and informed elections.’ This essential goal is achieved by supporting a ‘policy of encouraging free and open debate in internal union affairs’ . . . The model for free and fair Union elections is that of partisan political elections . . . The cardinal principle is that the best remedy for untrue speech is more free speech, with the electorate being the final arbiter.
Landwehr, P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that the protested leaflet was clearly campaign literature and is thereby protected by the Rules.
Daniel Stefanski
April 3, 1996
Page 1
Based on the foregoing, the 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 & 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,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator