Protest Decisions

            Hoffa-Hall 2011 filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that the Gegare-Sheard slate sent a campaign email to the IBT’s email list without including the disclaimer required by our Advisory on campaign use of union email lists.

            Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            On September 29, 2011, the Gegare-Sheard campaign sent a campaign email using the IBT’s email list.  The email sender was listed as Fred Gegare; his email address was listed as fred@fred2011.com.  The subject line read “Had enough of Hoffa? Vote him OUT in October.”  The body of the email began with the large-font question: “Had enough of Hoffa?”  It then listed “Five Reasons to Vote for Fred Gegare for IBT President.”  The email displayed photos of Fred Gegare and Jim Sheard, listed all candidates on the Gegare-Sheard slate, contained hyperlinks to the Gegare campaign website at www.fred2011.com, and concluded with the Gegare-Sheard banner logo.

            The email did not state or otherwise indicate that the email list to which it was transmitted was the IBT’s list.  Nor did it state that the IBT had not reviewed and did not endorse the campaign message.

            Our Advisory on Rights of Candidates to Distribute Campaign Literature to Members Using IBT International Union and Local Union Email Lists, published January 7, 2011, states the following:

Each piece of the distributed email should include the statement: “This email is distributed by [name of campaign], which is solely responsible for its content.  The message has not been reviewed or endorsed by the IBT [or Local Union XXXX].” 

As we noted in Leedham Slate, 2006 ESD 357 (September 26, 2006):

The purpose of the disclaimer … is to eliminate confusion as to the source of the communication.  The email list used here is an official IBT mailing list and the disclaimer informs the recipient that this authorized distribution is not endorsed by the union.  It is the same sort of disclaimer the Rules require on literature candidates may request to mail using the Union’s nonprofit bulk rate permit.  See Rules, Article VII, Section 7(a)(3).  For email communications, such a disclaimer is particularly important where the communication is sent by the incumbent International officer or where the message uses symbols such as the Union’s official logo or similar insignia, facts that may cause confusion among recipients as to whether the communication is from the union or from a candidate. 

In Sasson, 2011 ESD 206 (April 12, 2011), we found that a campaign email broadcast to a local union’s membership violated the Advisory in part because the email did not contain a disclaimer stating that it was campaign material not endorsed by the local union.  The disclaimer was especially important in that case because the email sender was listed as the local union, not the candidate as we have in the present case.  Accordingly, the failure to include the disclaimer in Sasson could cause the reader to be confused as to whether the candidate was endorsed by the union.

            Here, by contrast, no such confusion is present because the sender is the candidate and no indication is given that the email is sent by the IBT or using the IBT’s email list.  Virtually the same scenario occurred in 2006 when  Hoffa 2006 sent a broadcast email using the IBT email list but failed to include the disclaimer.  Like this case, the Hoffa 2006 email showed the candidate (not the IBT) as the sender; the email’s content did not indicate distribution using the IBT’s list; and the email did not reflect any approval, review or endorsement by the IBT.  Under the circumstances, we held:

Here, we find that, despite the lack of the required disclaimer, the appearance and content of the communication eliminates the possibility that recipients would be misled into believing that the email was from Hoffa as General President or from the IBT.  Accordingly, the failure to include the disclaimer is a violation of the Advisory for which only a cease and desist remedy is necessary.

Leedham Slate, 2006 ESD 357 at 2. 

            We adopt the same holding in the present case.  We conclude that the Gegare-Sheard broadcast email violated the Advisory by failing to include the disclaimer advising recipients that the email was campaign material that the IBT did not review or endorse.  We direct the campaign to include the disclaimer on future broadcasts of campaign email it sends using a union email list.  Consistent with Leedham Slate, 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.