This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

 

April 2, 1996

 

 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

 


David Pratt

April 2, 1996

Page 1

 

 

David Pratt

536 Prospect Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11215

 

The Real Teamsters for Local 966 Slate

c/o Matthew R. Eannuzzi

70 Woodview Lane

Centerreach, NY 11720

 

Anthony Mungin

2568 Western Avenue

Altamont, NY 12009

 

Jacques Apollon

2904 Rivendell Way

Edison, NJ 08817


Dominick Martucci

6617 12th Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11219

 

The Hoffa/Hogan Slate

c/o James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098

 

Coinmach, Inc.

55 Lumber Road

Rosslyn, NY 11576


David Pratt

April 2, 1996

Page 1

 

 

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-649-LU966-NYC

 

Gentlemen:

 

David Pratt, a business agent for Local Union 966, 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 Coinmach Industries, Inc. (“Coinmach” or “the employer”), which employs members of Local Union 966.  The protester alleges that Coinmach made prohibited campaign contributions by distributing to its employees literature promoting the Real Teamsters for Local 966 slate (the “Real Teamsters slate”) of candidates for delegate, Dominick Martucci, who is one of the independent candidates for delegate, and the campaign of James P. Hoffa (the “Hoffa campaign”) for International office.

 


David Pratt

April 2, 1996

Page 1

 

 

  Coinmach asserts that the Election Officer does not have any jurisdiction to require  the employer to participate in the investigation of this protest or to be bound by the Election Officer’s findings.  The employer denies that it provided any assistance to any candidate in the delegate or International officer election.

 

New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt investigated the protest.

 

Coinmach operates laundry services at various locations in New York City.  Local

Union 966 has a collective bargaining agreement with Coinmach recognizing the local union as the exclusive representative of its employees.

 

In the Local Union 966 delegate election, the local union nominated two slates of candidates for delegates and two independent candidates for delegate, Dominick Martucci and Jacques Apollon.  One slate is the Working Teamsters for Ron Carey slate and the other is the Real Teamsters slate.  Ballots were mailed to the membership on March 15, 1996 and will be counted on April 13, 1996.

 

The employer communicates with its employees by delivery from a parts truck that starts from the employer’s headquarters in Roslyn, New York and makes scheduled stops in various locations in New York City.  On Tuesday, March 19, 1996, a Coinmach employee put on the parts truck a stack of leaflets for both the Real Teamsters slate and Dominick Martucci, and a stack of leaflets for the Hoffa campaign.[1]  The truck made a stop in Brooklyn on Wednesday, March 20, 1996, and in East Manhattan on Thursday, March 22, 1996.  At these stops, the employer’s supervisors, Bill Petzold in Brooklyn and Nelson Zuniga in East Manhattan, distributed the campaign literature to the employees along with their paychecks.

 

The Rules, in Article XII, Section 1(b)(1), prohibit employers from contributing

“. . . 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.”  The Election Officer stated in her Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (“Advisory”) that campaign contributions under the Rules include in-kind contributions, referring to all contributions received by a campaign other than money or monetary equivalents.  When an employer uses its vehicle and employees on work-time to distribute campaign literature, this is an in-kind contribution, prohibited under the Rules.  Therefore, Coinmach has made a prohibited contribution to the campaigns of the Real Teamsters slate and the Hoffa campaign, in violation of the Rules prohibiting employer contributions.

 

The Rules, at Article XII, Sections 1(a) and 1(b)(1), also prohibit any candidate from accepting a campaign contribution from an employer.  Under Article XII, Section 1(b)(9), candidates are strictly liable to ensure that each contribution received is permitted under the Rules, whether the contribution is solicited or unsolicited.  Accordingly, the Real Teamsters

 


David Pratt

April 2, 1996

Page 1

 

 

Caucus and the Hoffa campaign have violated the Rules because the contribution from Coinmach benefitted those two campaigns.

 

Coinmach questions whether the Election Officer may assert jurisdiction over the employer.  The authority of the Election Officer is derived from the Consent Order entered in United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, et al., 88 Civ. 4486 (DNE).  Pursuant to this authority, the Election Officer has promulgated the Rules for the conduct of fair, honest, open and informed elections.  She retains the authority to interpret and to enforce the Rules.  Her authority may extend to nonparties, including employers who are in a position to frustrate the goals of the Consent Order and this supervised election process.  In Re: Application I of the Election Officer, 88 Civ. 4486 (DNE) (August 22, 1995) (slip op. pp. 39-40) (citing All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) (1988); United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977); United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 948 F.2d 98, 104-05 (2d Cir. 1981), vacated as moot, 113 S. Ct. 31 (1992); United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 907 F.2d 277,

280-81 (2d Cir. 1990)).

 

In articulating the purpose of the prohibition on employer contributions, the Election Officer is guided by court decisions interpreting Section 481(g) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended (“LMRDA”), which is incorporated into the Rules pursuant to Article XIII.  Section 481(g) similarly prohibits employer contributions to a candidate in a union election subject to Title IV of the LMRDA.  The section has been interpreted strictly to “prevent, discourage, and make unprofitable improper conduct on the part of union officials, employers and their representatives.  Marshall v. Local Union 20, IBT, 611 F.2d 645, 651  (December 19, 1979); United Auto Workers v. National Right to Work Foundation, 590 F. 2d 1139, 1148-49 (D.C. Cir. 1978).                 

 

When a benefit has been conferred by the employer on candidates for union office, there is a risk that the interests of the employees may be adversely affected as a result.  The Election Officer finds that Coinmach’s support of candidates for delegate and International office frustrates a fundamental requirement of the Rules and impedes the goal of providing for a fair and honest election process.

 

Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED for the improper contribution by Coinmach and the improper acceptance of the contribution by the Real Teamsters slate, Dominick Martucci, and the Hoffa campaign.

 

When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “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.  Because Coinmach’s intervention in the delegate and International officer campaigns interferes with fundamental goals of this supervised election process, the employer’s violation is a particularly serious violation of the Rules.  

 

The Election Officer orders the following remedy:

 


David Pratt

April 2, 1996

Page 1

 

 

1.  Coinmach shall cease and desist from making any further contribution to the campaign of a candidate for delegate or International office.  The Election Officer further orders the Real Teamsters slate of candidates for delegate, Dominick Martucci, and the Hoffa campaign to cease and desist from accepting a campaign contribution from this or any employer.

 

2.  The candidates for which no prohibited distribution of leaflets was made must be provided with a similar benefit.  See Gilberg, P-284-IBT (September 20, 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 91 - Elec. App. - 194 (SA) (October 2, 1991) (providing equal benefit to one slate for employer contribution to other slate).  Therefore, (1) Working Teamsters for Ron Carey slate of candidates for delegate from Local Union 966, (2) Jacques Apollon, an independent candidate, and (3) the Carey campaign shall each be provided a mailing to the Local Union 966 membership.

 

The mailing shall consist of one campaign leaflet on one side of an 8½11-inch page.  Leaflets may be combined in a single mailing at the option of the party requesting the mailing, and with the consent of the party with whom the mailing is sought to be combined.  If any of the three parties listed above desires to mail out literature, it should provide the literature, reproduced and tri-folded, to Local Union 966 within one (1) day of the receipt of this decision.  The local union shall be responsible for the actual mailing out of the literature within two (2) days of its receipt.

 

The Real Teamster slate, Dominick Martucci, and the Hoffa campaign shall each be jointly liable for of the cost of the mailings which is due and owed to the local union within two (2) days of receipt of the local union’s sending these parties an invoice.  Within (2) days after completion of the mailing, the principal officer of Local Union 966 shall submit an affidavit to the Election Officer describing the compliance of the local union with the foregoing order including the invoice sent to the Real Teamsters slate, Dominick Martucci, and the Hoffa campaign.  These parties shall immediately forward to the local union their of the invoice and shall then send an affidavit to the Election Officer providing a copy of their check or money order confirming payment to the local union.

 

3.  On the first payday after two (2) days after the receipt of this decision, Coinmach shall distribute the “Notice from the Election Officer” attached hereto to its employees represented by Local Union 966, along with their paychecks, at the scheduled stops made by the parts truck(s) to distribute paychecks.  Within two (2) days thereof, the employer shall submit an affidavit to the Election Officer describing its compliance with the foregoing order.

 

The parties are reminded that “the Election Officer’s orders take immediate effect against parties found to be in violation of the Rules . . .”  In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. -73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).

 

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

 


David Pratt

April 2, 1996

Page 1

 

 

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

Barbara C. Deinhardt, New York City Protest Coordinator

Arthur Wasserman, Regional Coordinator


 

 

 

              Notice to Members of Local Union 966

from Barbara Zack Quindel, IBT Election Officer

 

 

 

Coinmach, Inc. has been ordered to distribute this notice by Barbara Zack Quindel, IBT Election Officer:

 

On March 19 and 20, 1996, Coinmach, Inc. distributed to its employees campaign literature promoting candidates for delegate from the local union to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”) convention and candidates for International office.  This action violated the Election Rules which prohibit employers from making any campaign contribution to influence the election of any candidate for delegate or International office.  This action was a campaign contribution because Coinmach used its employees on work-time to distribute literature from its truck.

 

I have instructed Coinmach that it has committed a serious violation of the Rules.  I have ordered Coinmach to cease and desist from making any further contribution to the campaign of any candidate for delegate or International officer.

 

I have also ordered candidates for whom literature was distributed--the Real Teamsters slate of candidates for delegate, Dominick Martucci, an independent candidate for delegate, and the Hoffa campaign--to cease and desist from accepting a campaign contribution from the employer.

 

In order to provide an equal benefit to the opposing candidates, I have ordered that the Real Teamsters slate, Mr. Martucci, and the campaign of James P. Hoffa to bear the costs of a mailing of campaign literature to the members of Local Union 966 from the opposing candidates:  the Working Teamsters for Ron Carey slate of delegate candidates, Jacques Apollon, an independent candidate for delegate and the campaign of Ron Carey for International office.

 

 

 

Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer

 

 

Dated this 2nd day of April, 1996

 

 

 


[1]The Hoffa campaign leaflet was a Hoffagram, from Hoffa 96 in Detroit, Michigan.