Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR for the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: SANDY POPE,                                  )           Protest Decision 2011 ESD 332
                                                                         )           Issued: September 28, 2011
            Protestor.                                            )           OES Case No. P-328-092211-NA    
____________________________________)

            The Sandy Pope campaign filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that Hoffa-Hall 2011 obtained employer and union contributions, in violation of the Rules. 

            Election Supervisor representative Deborah Schaaf investigated this protest. 

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            The protest alleged that supporters of Hoffa-Hall 2011 obtained involuntary employer contributions by affixing campaign banners to employer property.  Proof of these allegations was provided by photos posted on the website of Hoffa-Hall 2011.  Thus, photos depicted Hoffa-Hall 2011 candidate John Murphy and other supporters with campaign banners mounted on employer-owned fences and other fixtures at Coca-Cola, Uniontown Hospital, and UPS.  The protest asserted that such use of employer facilities gave the appearance of an employer endorsement of the campaign.  The campaign banners were removed from the employer facilities shortly after they were mounted, and the photos depicting their appearance on employer fixtures have been removed from the campaign website. 

            The protest further alleged that Hoffa-Hall 2011 impermissibly used union facilities to campaign.  Photos on the campaign website showed James P. Hoffa addressing a gathering in the assembly room of Local Union 542 in San Diego and posing with persons who attended the event.  Investigation showed that Local Union 542 gave advance written notice by certified letters dated August 22, 2011 to all candidates for General President that its facilities were available for rental.  Investigation further showed that Hoffa-Hall 2011 contracted for use of the hall for September 11, 2011 at the rental rate of $150 and used the facility to campaign.[1]  This procedure complied with the requirements of Article VII, Section 12(c), which permits candidates to use union facilities, provided the union is reimbursed at fair market value for such use and advance written notice of the availability of such assistance is given to all candidates. 

            The protest also challenged photos depicting Hoffa in front of local union halls, contending that such photo compositions conveyed endorsement of Hoffa by those local unions. 

We GRANT the aspect of the protest challenging the use of employer fencing and other fixtures for campaigning, finding that the use of the employer assets for such purpose violated Article IX, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules.[2]  We DENY the portion of the protest challenging use of Local Union 542’s hall for a campaign purpose (and the photos of that event), finding that the use complied with the Rules’ requirements.  Finally, we DENY the portion of the protest alleging that the photos of Hoffa in front of local union halls impermissibly conveyed the endorsement of him by those local unions.  We find as fact that the protested photos do not convey endorsements, noting further that such photo opportunities are available on a non-discriminatory basis to all candidates.

Remedy

When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.

            We order the Hoffa-Hall 2011 campaign to cease and desist from using employer resources to campaign.

            As the banners have now been removed from the employer facilities and the photos of them removed from the Hoffa-Hall 2011 website, we order no further remedy.

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 Supervisor 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

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY 10022

Fax: (212) 751-4864

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L, Washington, D.C. 20006, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

                                                                                     Richard W. Mark
                                                                                    Election Supervisor

cc:        Kenneth Conboy
            2011 ESD 332

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):