July 8, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Joe McLean
July 8, 1998
Page 1
Joe McLean
46 Emmett Street
Fonthill, ON L0S 1E0
CANADA
Louis LaCroix, President
Teamsters Canada
2540 Daniel-Johnson Boulevard
Suite 804
Laval, PQ H7T 2S3
CANADA
Garnet Zimmerman, President
Teamsters Local Union 31
1 Grosvenor Square
Delta, BC V3M 5S1
CANADA
Joe McLean
July 8, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-137-LU31-EOH
Gentlemen:
Joe McLean, president of Local Union 879 and candidate for Teamsters Canada vice-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 “Hoffa Slate” and Garnet Zimmerman, president of Local Union 31 and an opposing candidate for vice-president. Mr. McLean alleged that a union-financed “open” letter prepared and distributed by Mr. Zimmerman supported his candidacy in violation of the Rules. The letter was addressed to Louis LaCroix, president of Teamsters Canada. Mr. Zimmerman admits the letter was union-financed and that it was prepared on union time using union resources, but denies that the contents of the letter constitute campaigning.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Counsel David S. Paull.
The facts are not disputed. On or about June 11, 1998, Mr. Zimmerman distributed the protested letter by facsimile machine to every IBT local union in Canada. Copies of the letter were also sent to Tom Sever, acting general president of the IBT, and James P. Hoffa and Tom Leedham, candidates for general president.
Joe McLean
July 8, 1998
Page 1
The subject of the letter was what Mr. Zimmerman described as Mr. LaCroix’s “comments” in the February/March/April edition of Teamsters Canada, a union-financed publication. In that issue, Mr. LaCroix stated that “active involvement of our rank-and-file members” helped to “pave the way towards ending discrimination against Canadian Teamsters within our International union.”
Mr. Zimmerman’s letter advanced an opposite view. In an attempt to demonstrate that there was no discriminatory treatment of Canadian Teamsters, Mr. Zimmerman cited to certain changes in member status including the granting of an independent Canadian charter, the establishment of a separate Canadian magazine, the selection of a Canadian member to direct the Construction Division, the increase of representation on the General Executive Board, providing rebates of Canadian per capita payments and providing payments for affiliation with the Canadian Labour Congress. The body of the letter does not mention either the IBT International officer election, or any candidate in that election.
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 seq. (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). The Election Officer also considers the context in which the communications appeared.
In Martin, the Election Officer recognized that union officers and officials have a “right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office 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 subject of Canadian autonomy has been an issue in the campaign. Hoffa, PR-017-IBT-EOH (October 31, 1997), aff’d, 97 - Elec. App. - 330 (KC) (November 28, 1997). However, the topic has also been enthusiastically debated by IBT members as a matter of legitimate union interest. Hoffa, P-733-IBT-SCE (September 8, 1997). As long as no campaigning occurs, union resources may be used to engage in this debate without causing a breach of the Rules. In Martin, supra, a protester alleged that because many of the subjects in an IBT-financed three-year progress report were also adopted as campaign themes by the incumbent candidate, the IBT-financed publication should be considered union-financed campaign material in violation of the Rules. The Election Officer specifically rejected this contention:
Joe McLean
July 8, 1998
Page 1
Just because Mr. Carey may use his campaign literature to praise his accomplishments does not automatically make the reporting of those accomplishments to the members campaigning. As one Court has stated, “[P]articipants must have some latitude to speak freely about matters of current concern to members, although these may often be campaign issues as well, and even though their statements may be made with that fact in mind.” Donovan v. Metro Dist. Council of Carpenters, 797 F.2d at 145 (3d Cir. 1986).
(Emphasis added).
Mr. Zimmerman’s letter does not directly support or attack a candidate and does not make any reference to the rerun election. The letter presents views which are facially neutral and directly related to union business. On the evidence submitted, Mr. Zimmerman properly exercised his right as a union officer to communicate, advise, and report to the membership on an issue of general concern and an ongoing policy debate within the IBT – the status of the Canadian members within the union.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master