July 14, 1996
James P. Hoffa
Philadelphia Convention Center
Room 103-B
Ron Carey, General President
Election Office Case No. P-849-IBT-MGN
Gentlemen:
James P. Hoffa, candidate for general president, 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 International union. The protest concerns the IBT’s assignment to two IBT staff members, Joe Henry and David Eckstein, to return to IBT employment from leave they had taken from the IBT to work for the Carey campaign. The protester alleges the IBT made an improper contribution to the Carey campaign by assigning these staff members to work as “whips” at the International convention for the passage of the amendments to the International constitution proposed by Mr. Carey.
The IBT responds that it has appointed these two staff members to serve as appointed delegates. The union states that the General President has the constitutional authority to appoint delegates to serve as “whips” at the convention to promote the polices supported by the IBT, as long as the whips have no role whatsoever in the nomination debate or process. The IBT argues that the fact that these whips recently worked for the Carey campaign, or that whips may advocate positions which overlap with those taken by the Carey campaign, does not convert the legitimate assignment given to the staff members into campaign contributions.
This protest was assigned to Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Dave Eckstein worked for the IBT as an International representative and International organizer before taking leave in April 1996 to work on the Carey campaign. Joe Henry is an International representative who has used vacation time to work on the Carey campaign. In a Carey campaign memorandum dated June 28, 1996, Campaign Manager Jere Nash stated, in part, as follows:
On Monday morning, Dave Eckstein and Joe Henry will return to the International’s payroll and begin work developing the IBT whip program. Dave and Joe will be working at the Convention for the adoption of the Administration’s package of amendments to the IBT Constitution.
The IBT has proposed a number of amendments to its constitution reflecting the union’s positions on various matters of internal union policy. Pursuant to Article III, Section 5(a) of the IBT constitution, the International union may appoint International representatives, organizers and auditors as delegates. Article III, Section 5(a) of the constitution further provides that appointed delegates “shall be entitled to all the privileges of regularly credentialed delegates, but shall not be permitted to nominate or vote for officers at the Convention unless they have been elected as delegates in secret ballot delegate elections held by a Local Union.”
The IBT has designated a number of appointed and elected delegates to serve as “whips” during the convention. According to the IBT, it intends for the whips to communicate to delegates the Administration’s position on convention issues and to speak from the floor in defense of measures supported by the Carey administration. The whips will not be assigned to play any role in the nomination of candidates for International officer. The IBT staff members appointed as delegates who serve as whips will be paid their regular IBT employee salary.
Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules prohibits the International union from making a campaign contribution to the campaign of a candidate International office. The Rules define a “campaign contribution” to include “any direct or indirect contribution of money or other thing of value where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence the election of a candidate.” Rules, Definitions, 5. As stated in the Election Officer’s Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure, such contributions can include any goods, compensated services or any material things of value.
The Election Officer stated in Faulkner, P-293-IBT-CLE (March 25, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 159 (April 4, 1996), concerning an allegation that the General Executive Board of the International union made an unlawful campaign contribution:
Where the IBT or an affiliate is accused of making a campaign contribution through its activities . . . the conduct must be examined in light of the union’s legitimate activities and functions. For example, a local union president might decide that by hiring an additional clerical employee, the local union would be able to process members’ grievances more quickly. This would be a legitimate, union-related expenditure of union funds. It would not become an improper contribution simply because the foreseeable effect of this action would be to increase the popularity of the local president and, thus, increase the president’s chances of reelection. To find a violation, the “foreseeable effect” of the expenditure must be more direct, as opposed to a possible or incidental byproduct.
The Election Officer has held in several cases that the amendments proposed by the current administration of the IBT are issues of ongoing policy debate within the IBT, separate from the International officers nomination and election. See, e.g., Volpe, et al., P-828-IBT-MGN, et seq. (July 11, 1996). The Election Officer has recognized the distinction between the entirely permissible use of the union’s resources to discuss its policies, and the prohibited use of union resources for campaign activity. Martin, supra.
The Election Officer has previously permitted, in the context of the issue of whether a union-financed publication “support[s] or attack[s] any candidate” within the meaning of Article VIII, Section 8(a), the International union to communicate its views on proposed amendments to the constitution, since such matters are legitimate subjects of interest to the union membership. See Young, P-722-IBT-EOH (June 6, 1996)(permitting magazine to communicate its rationale for selecting a new name for the International union); Hoffa, P-733-IBT-SCE (May 1, 1996)(allowing communication on merits of amendment granting sovereignty to Canadian union members). The International union may communicate its views to the membership on matters of union policy, when such communications remain outside of the context of the election of delegates or International officers. See, e.g., Young, supra (eliminating corruption by imposing trusteeships); Hoffa, P-140-IBT-PNJ (October 13, 1995)(maintaining a strike fund); Ohlson, P-50-LU235-EOH (September 27, 1995) (abolishing area conferences); Martin, supra (organizing the unorganized).
Further, IBT officers have the right to choose staff who are committed to union policies. See, Faulkner, supra (finding that action by an officer “to ensure that administrators are loyal to him or her does not by itself violate the Rules”); Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC)(October 10, 1995)(finding replacement of local union officer because of his opposition to policies of general president not to be a violation of the Rules).
In the present case, the IBT has assigned IBT staff members to mobilize support during the convention for amendments to the IBT Constitution proposed by the current administration. The IBT has not assigned the whips to promote on the convention floor the campaign of Mr. Carey for re-election to general president.
The fact that these particular appointed delegates have just previously worked on the Carey campaign does not disqualify them from serving as appointed delegates or whips. The Rules permit union staff to engage in campaign activity as long as they do not use union resources to do so. Rules, Article VIII, Section 11(b). Nor do the Rules bar the union from communicating to the membership positions on matters of internal union policy that are similar to positions taken by the Carey campaign, as long as such a view is communicated without urging support of or opposition to any candidate. Hoffa, P-733-IBT-SCE (May 1, 1996); Faulkner, supra citing Martin, supra. (rejecting argument that communications “concerning Mr. Carey constituted improper campaigning because they served to emphasize themes of his campaign”). The assignment given by the IBT here to the staff appointed as delegates, to work during the convention as whips encouraging support for the amendments to the constitution proposed by the incumbent administration, is not a campaign contribution.
The protest is therefore DENIED.