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

IN RE: HOFFA UNITY SLATE,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 441
Issued: September 6, 2001
OEA Case No. PR072411NA

The Hoffa Unity slate (the "Hoffa 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") against Teamsters for a Democratic Union ("TDU"). The protest alleges the upcoming TDU convention will be an improperly funded campaign event for the Tom Leedham Rank and File Power slate (the "Leedham slate").

Election Administrator representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated the protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

TDU will hold its 26th convention September 21 to 23, 2001, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Members of the Leedham slate are expected to appear and address various portions of the convention. The protestor alleges the convention will largely be given over to campaign activities.

The evidence presented in support of the protest is in two parts. First, a convention announcement published in Convoy Dispatch, TDU's newspaper, reads in part: "[I]f you want to see Democracy and Rank & File Power in action, plan now to attend." The protestor asserts that, because the phrase "rank and file power" also appears in the name for the Leedham slate, the conclusion follows that "the convention is intended to be a campaign vehicle for the Leedham Slate." The second fact cited is that the convention will be held at least one month earlier than in recent years. The protestor contends the convention was "moved up … to coincide with the mailing of ballots for the IBT convention."

The protestor urges these facts as proof the TDU convention has been converted from a substantially educational conference to a political event for the Leedham slate, thus implicating the Rules provisions governing use of union resources and solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions.

In Taylor, 2000 EAD 75 (December 29, 2001), aff'd 01 EAM 16 (February 8, 2001), we considered a similar protest filed regarding the 2000 TDU convention. There we noted that the convention historically has consisted largely of educational seminars and, particularly in years coinciding with IBT elections, a smaller segment of seminars and keynotes devoted to campaigning. In such situations, TDU has analyzed the campaign-related content of each of its presentations; it has then assigned the registration fee according to the mathematical allocation of educational versus campaign-related content of the convention, refunding the campaign-related portion to the local unions paying the registration fees. The 1997, 1998 and 2000 TDU conventions have produced allocations of campaign-related activities totaling 14%, 21%, and 20.5%, respectively. In each of these three years, the allocation has been reviewed and approved by the Election Officer or Administrator, and determinations issued that the campaign activity as quantified by the allocation is incidental to the legitimate union business the balance of the convention entails.

Because the 2001 convention has yet to occur, it is too early to assess the level of campaign-related activity that will occur and whether it will remain incidental to the overall educational purpose of the convention. Accordingly, we DENY the protest as premature.

Should a protest be filed following the convention, we will apply the same analysis we used in Taylor, supra. Relevant to that analysis but not determinative of the overriding issue such a protest will present is the timing of the convention vis-à-vis the mailing of ballots for the IBT election.

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 (facsimile: 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 441

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

Hoffa Unity Slate

Todd Thompson

209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20003

Matt Ginsberg

Tom Leedham Campaign

30 Third Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11217

James L. Hicks, Jr., P.C.

Suite 1100

2777 N. Stemmons Freeway

Dallas, TX 75207

Teamsters for a Democratic Union

7437 Michigan Avenue

Detroit, MI 48210