IN RE: DALE FERGUSON and JIM LASLIE,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 286
Issued: March 30, 2001
OEA Case No. PR031811MW
Dale Ferguson and Jim Laslie, Local 89 members and delegate candidates on the United Rank and File slate (the "Rank & File slate"), filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protestors allege that Local 89 president Fred Zuckerman, IBT field representative Tom Brewer, and Local 89 business agent Kevin Oliva engaged in campaigning at a Local 89 general freight meeting.
Election Administrator representative Jason Weidenfeld investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact
On March 18, 2001, a freight meeting was held at the Teamsters Local 89 union hall. Local 89 holds such meetings regularly to discuss issues relevant to members working in the industry. At this meeting, presentations were made by Local 89 president Zuckerman, who is a delegate candidate on the Zuckerman Washburn Unity slate (the "Unity slate"), IBT field representative Brewer, and Local 89 business agent Oliva.
According to Zuckerman, he spoke to dispel two rumors that had been circulating, first, that members' pensions would be reduced based on their income from social security; and second, that Local 89 was in dire financial straits and had spent more than one million dollars since Zuckerman took office in January 2000. Zuckerman told our investigator that he has been talking about these matters at membership meetings to make them aware of the real financial condition of Local 89. He told our investigator that members and an employer had inquired as to the truth of the rumors. Zuckerman told the members at the freight meeting that the allegations were unfounded and that the statements about the local's financial condition needed to stop because they hurt the local's representation of members. Zuckerman spoke for approximately five minutes.
The protestors believe that Zuckerman's discussions of the local's finances are a direct response to the Rank & File slate's campaign literature, which asserts that the local union has lost a great deal of money since Zuckerman took office in January 2000. It is undisputed, however, that Zuckerman's presentation never referenced the upcoming delegate election. Likewise, Zuckerman never identified who might have been spreading the rumors.
Tom Brewer also spoke for about five minutes. He urged the members to participate in the political process, especially governmental elections. In the course of his presentation, Brewer pushed members to get involved with the local union and, in this capacity, to vote in the upcoming delegate election. When Brewer spoke to the members about the election, he stated that he did not care whether members voted for the Unity slate but then hesitated because he could not recall the name of the Rank & File slate. He asked for the name. Oliva volunteered that the second slate was the "Dale Ferguson slate." Ultimately, Brewer said that he did not care whether members voted for the Unity slate or the Dale Ferguson slate as long as they voted. Oliva told our investigator that although he knows the names of both slates, he answered this way because Dale Ferguson was the first person listed on the Rank & File slate-just as Zuckerman is the first person listed on the Unity slate. We have confirmed the accuracy of Oliva's recollection of the order of Zuckerman and Ferguson on their respective slates.
Two Local 89 members who attended the meeting, Danny McGee and Jeff Pyle, stated that they did not feel that Brewer engaged in campaigning or promoted one slate over another. Although it is somewhat surprising that Brewer, who was promoting participation in the political process, could not recall the name of one of two slates running in Local 89's delegate election, we find this to be the case.
Immediately after Brewer finished his presentation, Oliva addressed the members. He first spoke very briefly about his attendance at Joint Area Committee grievance hearings in Chicago. Oliva recounted General President Hoffa's speech at the hearings, which, like Brewer's presentation, focused on IBT members' involvement in the political process. We credit the protestors' separate statements that Oliva told the members that he wished they could have heard Hoffa's speech. Oliva admits that he felt this way about the Hoffa speech, but cannot recall making the statement attributed to him by the protestors. Oliva estimated that his discussion of Hoffa's speech took less than one minute. Oliva then discussed freight matters.
Analysis
The Rules do not grant anyone a right to campaign at local union meetings. Nevertheless, if anyone campaigns on behalf of one candidate at a local union meeting, an equal right to campaign at the meeting must be afforded other candidates. Article VII, Section 5(a). Because no one asserts that Rank & File slate supporters were offered the opportunity to address members at the freight meeting, the sole issue is whether Zuckerman, Brewer, or Oliva campaigned on behalf of the Unity slate.
We first hold that Zuckerman did not campaign. As president of Local 89, Zuckerman's responsibilities include responding to members' concerns and informing them about matters of general interest. As stated in Martin, P10 (August 17, 1995), aff'd, 95 EAM 18 (October 2, 1995), union officers 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)). Zuckerman may address groups of members to inform them of the actual financial condition of Local 89, even if another slate's campaign materials might have triggered the members' concerns. Zuckerman may also caution members about the effect of allegations on the local union's effectiveness in representing members as long as he does not transform his information-sharing presentation to one of campaigning. In this regard:
[A]n otherwise acceptable communication may be considered campaigning if it goes on to make a connection with the election or the 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.
Id.
We find that Zuckerman's speech did not amount to, or evolve into, a campaign speech. He spoke about rumors that concern the membership generally, and although he urged members not to spread the rumors about the local's financial condition, his discussion focused on the potential harm of such allegations to all members. Zuckerman never discussed the delegate election or candidates, and his speech did not speculate as to who founded the rumors.
We also find that Brewer did not campaign. Although he might have been expected to recall the names of both slates competing in the Local 89 delegate election, we do not find that Brewer's speech favored one candidate over another. Rather, the focus of his presentation was to improve membership participation in the electoral process. Witnesses presented by the protestors did not believe that Brewer spoke on behalf of a particular slate, and we do not hold otherwise.
Finally, we hold that Oliva did not campaign. Brewer had just finished speaking about political participation when Oliva recounted a similar presentation that he had recently heard by Hoffa. Although Oliva conveyed a message of admiration for Hoffa, the timing and extremely limited duration of Oliva's extemporaneous remarks lead us to conclude that Oliva did not engage in campaigning.
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 two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Administrator in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
Suite 1000
885 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Fax: 212-751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15th Street NW, Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 20005 (fax: 202-454-1501), all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Election Administrator
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2001 EAD 286
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR:
Patrick Szymanski
IBT General Counsel
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
J. Douglas Korney
Korney & Heldt
30700 Telegraph Road
Suite 1551
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Barbara Harvey
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach
110 Mayfair
Eugene, OR 97404
IBT Local 89
3813 Taylor Blvd.
Louisville, KY 40215
Tom Brewer
c/o IBT Local 89
3813 Taylor Blvd.
Louisville, KY 40215
Fred Zuckerman
IBT Local 89
3813 Taylor Blvd.
Louisville, KY 40215
Kevin Oliva
IBT Local 89
3813 Taylor Blvd.
Louisville, KY 40215
Avral Thompson
Campaign Manager
Zuckerman Washburn Unity Slate
9135 Loretto Road
Loretto, KY 40034
Dale Ferguson
3504 Kamer Miller Road
New Albany, IN 47150
Jim Laslie
1413 Slate Run Road
New Albany, IN 47150
David Thornsberry
Campaign Manager
Rank & File Power Slate
10403 Truman Way
Louisville, KY 40299
Dennis M. Sarsany
1829 Eddy St.
Chicago, IL 60657
Michael Goldberg
73 Harrowgate Drive
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003