Protest Decisions

              September 26, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

John Thomas

2601 Guilford Lane

Oklahoma City, OK  73120

Richard W. Nelson, President

Teamsters Local Union 886

3528 W. Reno

Oklahoma City, OK  73107

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-904-LU886-SOU

Gentlemen:

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by John Thomas, a member of Local Union 886.  Mr. Thomas alleges that the July-August 1996 issue of Teamster Pride, Local Union 886’s official publication, improperly attacks the candidacy of James P. Hoffa for IBT general president.   The protester claims that the publication reflects the prejudice of Local Union 886 President Richard Nelson, who is a candidate for International vice president on the Ron Carey slate.  Mr. Thomas also submitted nine exhibits to the Regional Coordinator, which he states should have been included in the Teamster Pride issue in order for it to be impartial.

In response, Mr. Nelson states that Mr. Thomas failed to comply with Article XIV, Section 2(d) of the Rules because he did not provide the local union with a clear statement of the alleged improper conduct.  He also states that the local union was not notified by the protester of the alleged improper conduct within two days of learning of the conduct, as required by the Rules.  Finally, Mr. Nelson states that Mr. Thomas’ protest references a non-existent provision of the Rules.  For these reasons, Mr. Nelson contends that the protest is untimely and should be dismissed.

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

As to the merits, Mr. Nelson contends that the newsletter fairly and accurately informed members of the events which transpired at the IBT Convention.  Mr. Nelson characterizes the coverage of candidates as balanced and points out that some of the news clips included in Teamster Pride were unfavorable to Mr. Carey.

This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Dolores C. Hall. 

Mr. Thomas protests “the Special Edition ‘Teamster Pride’ July/August ‘96 published by Local Union 886 . . .”  He alleges that the “articles pertaining to our candidate James P. Hoffa are both biased and inaccurate and reflects a particular prejudice on the part of Richard Nelson, President of Local Union No. 886 and IBT Vice President candidate.” 

Before turning to the publication itself, the Election Officer will address Mr. Nelson’s contentions that Mr. Thomas’s protest is procedurally defective.

1.              Article XIV’s Filing Requirements for Protests

Mr. Thomas mistakenly states that his protest is filed “[p]ursuant to Article XIV,

Section 8” of the Rules.  The provision of the Rules applicable to union-financed publications is Article VIII, Section 8.  He also failed to send a copy of his protest to Local Union 886, as required by Article XIV, Section 2(d):  “All protests . . . shall be filed by sending the Election Officer and the Union(s) involved a clear and concise written statement of the alleged improper conduct.”  Mr. Nelson further contends that Mr. Thomas’ protest does not state a “clear and concise” statement of his allegations.

This protest was faxed to the Election Officer on August 27, 1996.  On August 28, the Election Officer sent Mr. Nelson a copy of the protester’s letter via overnight mail, which

Mr. Nelson acknowledges having received on August 29.  On September 4, Mr. Nelson submitted a letter to Regional Coordinator Hall, in which he made the procedural arguments addressed here, as well as responding to the substance of Mr. Thomas’ protest. 

The Election Officer finds that Mr. Nelson was not prejudiced by the two-day delay in receiving Mr. Thomas’ protest and that his response shows that he understood Mr. Thomas’ allegations with sufficient clarity.  The Election Officer treats filing requirements as prudential concerns rather than absolute jurisdictional requirements.  See, e.g., Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 29, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995).  The Election Officer finds that it would not serve the purposes of the Rules to reject Mr. Thomas’s protest on the procedural grounds raised by Mr. Nelson.

2.              Allegation that Publication Attacks Mr. Hoffa’s Candidacy

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

Volume 2, Number 7 of Teamster Pride, dated July-August, is 16 pages in length, 11 of which are devoted to coverage of the IBT’s 25th International Convention.  The lead story on the first page begins with the headline “SPECIAL EDITION: THE 25TH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO.”  The article, written by Dave Renfro, the editor of Teamster Pride, occupies most of pages one through five.  A “Commentary” on the Convention by

Mr. Renfro runs from page five to page six.  Remarks by Senator Arlen Specter are reprinted on page seven.  Pages eight and nine are a spread which reprints various news clips on the Convention.  Pages 10 and 11 reprint verbatim the nomination acceptance speeches of general president candidates Mr. Carey and Mr. Hoffa.  The upper one-third of page 12 consists of a “News Bulletin” with the headline, “Chicago Local 714 Placed in Temporary Trusteeship.” 

As stated above, Mr. Thomas broadly alleges that the July-August 1996 edition of Teamster Pride was biased against Mr. Hoffa and in favor of Mr. Carey.  Relevant portions of the publication are addressed below.

A.              The Lead Story and the “Commentary”

The untitled lead story and the “Commentary” starting on page five are both written by Mr. Renfro.[1]

The tone of the lead story is critical of actions attributed to Mr. Hoffa’s supporters.  The author refers to Mr. Carey as “the Chair” and portrays him in a positive light in relation to the boisterous activities of delegates pledged to Mr. Hoffa. 

The story begins by stating that from the start of the Convention “the political lines of division were drawn between supporters of Ron Carey . . . and James P. Hoffa, Jr.”[2]  Page two reports that “choreographed chants, boos and applause by delegates and guests” and “orchestrated chants of ‘Hoffa, Hoffa, Hoffa’” were shouted during the Convention’s opening ceremonies, including the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthems and the invocation.  “Calls for order from the chair,” the article states, were answered by “vulgar and personal attacks on the chair,” even during the “Moment of Silence” to honor deceased Teamsters members.  Page two further states that a drill team of young girls was met by booing which caused “tears in the eyes of several of these girls.”

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

Under a subheading on page two entitled, “Corruption,” the article describes the response of the delegates to the report of the IBT’s Appeals and Grievances Committee.[3]  The article states that the delegates voted in favor of all but one of the Committee’s recommendations; however, the delegates also voted “[b]y a narrow majority” to reverse the IBT’s suspensions of Frank Wsol, Robert Falco, Gary Crume and Greg Lees, all from Local Union 710 in Chicago.  A photograph accompanies the article showing Mr. Hoffa marching to the Convention Center with a crowd of supporters.  Several supporters are carrying a banner that reads “Free Frank J. Wsol.”  The other photograph, on page two, is a picture of Local Union 886’s delegation the the Convention, including President and Business Manager

Mr. Nelson. 

The next portion of the article, found on page three, has the subheading “Senator’s Speech Drowned Out by Delegates’ Noise,” and describes the attempts by Senator Arlen Specter to address the Convention on Monday, July 15, 1996.  Stating that the Senator “was booed off the stage and shouted at by a large number of delegates,” Mr. Renfro writes that Senator Specter “made a few remarks to delegates and summed up his observations as to the unruliness of certain delegates.”[4]  The article includes a description of the Senator’s appearance from the July 17, 1996 edition of the Philadelphia Daily News which identified “supporters of James P. Hoffa” as the delegates who “disrupted Monday’s opening session, preventing Specter and other speakers from addressing the union.” 

The next section of the article reports on the nominations for International office and lists the nominees.[5]  Following this section are descriptions of several actions taken by the delegates, such as a show of support for President Clinton, and the disapproval of an amendment to change the name of the International union. 

Starting on the bottom of page four, the article describes at some length a number of issues not addressed at the Convention, such as establishing standards of conduct for union officers, allowing local unions to decide whether to elect or appoint business agents and “[l]et[ting] membership and local union leaders decide the future of strike benefits.” 

Mr. Renfro attributes this inaction to the “delaying tactics of those delegates organized to disrupt the Convention [which] successfully forced the allotted time to expire prior to conducting all scheduled business on the Convention agenda.”

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

In the conclusion of the article, Mr. Renfro writes that “the events in Philadelphia can be positive when placed in the light of a much bigger picture . . . of entering a high tech twenty-first century; of competing in a global market place . . . and of continued government oversight of the Union.”  He quotes with approval the comments of The Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Daniel LeDue who stated:  “Longtime observers of the union say that while this convention may not have been decorous, it was democratic, showing that the Teamsters have entered a new era.”

Mr. Renfro’s “Commentary” presents personal views on the Convention, which he states he attended as a reporter.  Mr. Renfro is very critical of the “Hoffa delegates,” claiming that he would have found reports of their actions on the first day of the Convention, such as the booing of the Boy Scouts, “hard to believe” had he not been a witness to the proceedings.   Mr. Renfro writes:

In the privacy of the press room, I listened to reporters from daily newspapers, magazines and labor journals talk about their personal dismay at the manner in which so many delegates behaved in the name of supporting their chosen leader and opposing the incumbent leader.  I watched and listened to directed efforts by Hoffa delegates to shout down one committee report after another . . .

Had I not attended the Convention, I probably wouldn’t have believed the type of block voting that was taking place on issues so vital to the future of the Union Movement in general and Teamsters Union in particular . . . I wasn’t alone among the press corps in wondering what political strategy or union logic was at play when blocks of delegates were instructed by their floor leaders to NOT vote at all on issues related to union corruption.  (Emphasis in original.)

Accompanying the “Commentary” on page six are five photographs taken at the Convention.  Two of the photos show confrontations involving delegates.  The first, according to the caption, depicts “the Hoffa-assigned ‘floor leader’ to the guest section” arguing with a sergeant-at-arms over “the obscene chants the ‘floor leader’ was shouting [which] preceded the clearing of the Convention Hall.”  The second photo has a group of Hoffa supporters and an unidentified photographer in the foreground and is captioned:  “A physical confrontation erupts on the floor of the Convention Center as a photographer captures the moment.” 

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

The remaining three photographs on page six depict:  (1) two officers of the Philadelphia police department in the Convention Center;[6] (2) the Philadelphia Boy Scouts participating in the opening ceremonies “amidst organized disruption and booing,” according

to the caption; and (3) an unidentified gentleman standing outside doors to the Convention Hall with a sign stating “Vote No Here.”[7]

Mr. Renfro concludes the article by advising his readers to look at the pictures on page five, along with the newspaper clippings on pages eight and nine, and reach their own conclusions about the Convention.     

As noted above, Mr. Thomas’s allegation is that the articles in Teamster Pride “pertaining to our candidate James P. Hoffa are both biased and inaccurate . . .”

Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication may not be “used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.”  In reviewing union-financed communications for improper campaign content, the Election Officer looks to the tone, content and timing of the publication.  Martin, P-010-

IBT-PNJ et al. (August 17, 1995) (decision on remand), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC)

(October 2, 1995).  The Election Officer also considers the context in which the communication appeared.

In Martin, the Election Officer recognized that union officers and officials have a “right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office and to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern” (quoting Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924

(D.C. Cir. 1981)).  The Election Officer also recognized in Martin that:

. . . an otherwise acceptable communication may be considered campaigning if it goes on to make a connection with the election or election process, if it involves excessive direct or indirect personal attacks on candidates, or, alternatively, involves lavish    praise of candidates.  Otherwise legitimate coverage of the activities of a union official running for office may constitute campaigning if it is excessive.

Because of the close proximity of the International officer election, the standard of scrutiny has increased. 

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

Union-financed publications are prohibited from reporting on campaign activities, unless they provide equal coverage for all candidates for a particular office.  Campaign activities, however, were inextricably linked with other proceedings at the Convention.  The Election Officer recognizes that many aspects of the Convention were politically charged.  Many attendees openly displayed their political affiliation.  Energetic demonstrations of support for candidates were common, as were heated political debates.   A portion of the proceedings was devoted solely to the nominations of International officer candidates.  Thus, coverage of Convention proceedings and activities by union-financed publications violates the Rules only if such coverage unduly praises or criticizes candidates or reports on the activities conducted during the Convention solely for campaign purposes (e.g., a candidate rally) without providing equal coverage to other candidates for that office.  See Chalfant, P-882-JC28-PNW et seq. (September 6, 1996); Mee, P-955-LU853-EOH (September 20, 1996).    

In these articles by Mr. Renfro, the actions of Mr. Hoffa’s supporters are extensively criticized.  However, the Rules do not generally restrict the ability of IBT members to criticize the conduct of legitimate union business by their leaders.  “[R]estrictions on campaigning must not be read so broadly as to restrict the right and the responsibility of union officers to conduct their official business, nor prohibit other members and subordinate bodies from criticizing the policies or official conduct of those officers.”  Martin.  “Just as it is proper for incumbent Union officers to expend Union resources for the conduct of legitimate Union business, it is permissible for a Union member to criticize the manner in which the incumbent conducts such business.”  Jacob, P-060-LU745-EOH (July 21, 1996), remanded on other grounds, 95 - Elec. App. - 6 (KC) (August 14, 1995). 

In Hoffa, P-871-IBT-EOH (September 13, 1996), the Election Officer found that a picture of Hoffa supporters at the Convention, bearing a caption that identified the persons in the picture as disrupters, did not convey improper campaign tone or content.  The Election Officer stated:

Mr. Hoffa’s supporters had a legitimate right at the Convention to oppose the initiatives of the IBT with which they disagreed.  Mr. Hoffa characterizes the actions of his supporters in his protest, as “vigorously and vocally protest[ing] Carey’s undemocratic behavior.”  It is that opposition which the photograph depicts.  The actions of Mr. Hoffa’s supporters were distinct from their political support of Mr. Hoffa, as evidenced by their campaign vests, shirts and buttons.

Similarly, the criticism of Mr. Hoffa’s supporters contained in Mr. Renfro’s articles relates to the policy debate engaged in by those members opposing actions of the Convention chair with which they disagreed.  As noted above, the Election Officer has recognized in the context of Convention reporting that the atmosphere and debate at the Convention were politically charged, and that appropriate latitude should be given to such reporting as long as candidacy in the International officer election is not promoted or opposed.

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

In this regard, the Election Officer notes that the three references to the election in the lead article are neutral.  The first, on page one, reports that Mr. Carey is running for reelection, opposed by Mr. Hoffa who aspires to the office held by his late father.  The second states that “several confrontations erupted between the supporters of the two candidates for General President.”  The third is a paragraph describing the nomination process, followed by a list of the candidates for International office. 

Mr. Renfro’s “Commentary” also contains a reference to “the positions taken by each candidate for General President,” in discussing the fact that pro-Hoffa and pro-Carey supporters appeared to engage in block voting on issues that came before the Convention.  The Election Officer does not find improper campaign tone or content in these references in the article and the “Commentary.”

In accordance with prior decisions, the Election Officer finds that the lead article and the “Commentary” by Mr. Renfro in the July/August edition of Teamster Pride do not violate the Rules.  

B.              Senator Specter’s Remarks

On page seven, the remarks of Senator Specter to the Convention are reprinted in full.  Following the remarks is an “Editor’s Note” which states that Mr. Carey ordered all guests to leave the Convention Hall after the Senator exited.  Mr. Renfro continues:

Repeated chants of ‘Bulls--t’ were shouted from the floor as protesting delegates raised their fists and some revealed obscene gestures toward the podium.  Philadelphia police were called in to remove those guests refusing to leave.  It was more than an hour before the Convention could reconvene.

In Hoffa, P-870-PACONF-SCE (September 6, 1996), the Election Officer analyzed a publication that contained an article that described Senator Specter’s attempt to address the Convention.  The article quoted the Senator as stating that the heckling of his speech by certain individuals “does not do credit to those who support Mr. Hoffa,” attributed the mayhem to persons “in the guests gallery in the rear of the cavernous hall,” and reported on Mr. Carey’s expulsion of those guests.  The Election Officer stated:

The statements of Senator Specter to the delegates and guests at the Convention are of legitimate interest to the membership of the union.  The circumstances of Senator Specter’s presentation and his reasons for curtailing his address are newsworthy, and a verbatim reporting of his comments does not violate the Rules.

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

With respect to the Teamster Pride reporting, the Election Officer finds that reprinting the entire text of Senator Specter’s is of clear and legitimate interest to members.  The “Editor’s Note” describes what occurred in the Convention Hall following Senator Specter’s remarks without identifying those causing the disturbance or linking them to any campaign.  Under the standard set forth in Hoffa, supra, the article on page seven does not constitute a violation of the Rules.

C.              News Clippings

Pages eight and nine of Teamster Pride consist of five articles reprinted from The Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Times describing the IBT Convention, along with quotes from several other newspapers.  In general, the tone of the articles and quotes is critical of Mr. Hoffa’s supporters for disrupting the Convention proceedings and unruly behavior.[8]    However, several of the articles praise the Convention as symbolizing the emergence of democracy within the Teamsters union.[9]  The Election Officer further notes that Mr. Carey is criticized in the article reprinted from the New York Times, which describes Mr. Carey’s refusal to allow debate on the report of the credentials committee.  The author writes:

Quelling debate by declining to call upon Hoffa supporters who stood ready to speak, Mr. Carey asked for a voice vote.  A strong chorus of “Ayes” was followed by a longer, louder chorus of “Nos.”

Mr. Carey declared, “The ayes have it!”  He then sent everyone to lunch.

Upon reviewing the articles in the context of the Teamster Pride reporting as a whole, the Election Officer finds that they are generally critical of Convention proceedings as politically charged and contentious.  For example, the most prominent quotation on the two-page spread describes the atmosphere on the Convention floor as follows:  “It was shoulder to shoulder, chest to chest, a hot wind blowing over a sea of testosterone, and in the center of it, as whistles wailed and security staff radioed for backups, fists started to fly.”  Such reporting does not have campaign tone or content.  The few references in the clippings to the context of the International officer election are neutral and do not violate the Rules.

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

D.              News Bulletin

A brief “News Bulletin” appears in a box on page 12 of the publication with the headline “Chicago Local 714 Placed In Temporary Trusteeship.”  Stating that the Independent Review Board has just released a 122-page report “documenting the corrupt practices of

Bill Hogan,” the article identifies Mr. Hogan as “a candidate for Secretary-Treasurer on the James Hoffa, Jr. slate [who] also serves Local 714 in Chicago as Secretary-Treasurer and principal officer.”

The trusteeship of Local Union 714 is newsworthy and entitled to be included in a local union publication.  While the “News Bulletin” notes that Mr. Hogan was at that time a candidate on Mr. Hoffa’s slate, there is no further connection made between the trusteeship and the election of International officers.  Furthermore, Mr. Hogan has subsequently withdrawn his candidacy.  The Election Officer does not find that the “News Bulletin” contains improper campaign tone or content.

Lastly, the protester provided the Election Officer with nine “Exhibits” which he claimed should have been included in the July/August edition of Teamster Pride in order for it to be impartial.  Exhibit One is pro-Hoffa campaign literature consisting of an open letter to Mr. Carey from a Local Union 337 delegate, with other commentary on the page.  Exhibit Two is a Convention report from a Local Union 222 alternate delegate.  Exhibit Three is an unidentified picture.  Exhibit Four is pro-Hoffa campaign literature consisting of Convention-related statements by Convention delegates from Local Unions 795 and 38.  Exhibits Five and Six are collections of newspaper clippings, which Mr. Thomas compares to the two-page spread in the Teamster Pride issue.  Exhibits Seven and Eight reproduce that two-page spread.  Exhibit Nine is a “Hoffagram” piece of Hoffa campaign literature.

The Rules do not require Local Union 886 to publish Convention reporting by delegates from other local unions or even from their own delegates.  Furthermore, publishing Hoffa campaign material would plainly violate the Rules.  As the Election Officer stated in Volpe, P-828-IBT-MGN et seq. (July 11, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 218 (July 23, 1996), “[a] union-financed communication does not violate the Rules because it fails to treat opposing ideas or opinions.”

For the foregoing reasons, 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:

John Thomas

September 26, 1996

Page 1

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

Dolores C. Hall, Regional Coordinator