Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: FRED ZUCKERMAN,                  )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 300

                                                                        )           Issued: October 7, 2016

            Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-262-041416-NA     

____________________________________)                      

Fred Zuckerman, candidate for IBT General President, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that the IBT and General President Hoffa impermissibly used union resources to support the Hoffa-Hall 2016 slate.

            Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

On April 13, 2016, the IBT held its 2016 IBT Central Region meeting at Hyatt Rosemont in Rosemont, IL.  It was one of four regional meetings the IBT conducted that in March and April.[1]  Each event followed a similar format, commencing with a welcome by an IBT vice president from the region where the event was held; remarks from General President Hoffa concerning the upcoming IBT convention, DRIVE (the IBT’s political action committee), state and national politics, and other matters that involve the International union; a presentation followed by questions and answers by IBT general counsel Bradley Raymond concerning the transition under the Final Order from the Independent Review Board to the new Independent Disciplinary Officers; remarks from General Secretary-Treasurer Ken Hall concerning the financial status of the IBT and new programs being implemented for the IBT affiliate audit program; a presentation from Christy Bailey, the IBT director responsible for the union’s state and federal legislative affairs programs, summarizing the IBT’s political priorities for the fall elections; and remarks from director of organizing Jeff Farmer, detailing organizing successes, priorities and ongoing campaigns.

On the evening following the event, the IBT hosted a reception for those in attendance.  In addition, Hoffa-Hall 2016 hosted a campaign event, which the hotel placed in the same room where the conference had occurred earlier in the day.

The protest made several allegations of use of IBT resources to support the Hoffa-Hall 2016 campaign.  Thus, it asserted that the union’s decision to host the central region meeting was motivated in substantial part to give the slate an opportunity to hold a campaign event, that General President Hoffa impermissibly promoted the campaign reception from the podium during the meeting, and that siting the campaign reception in the same room used for the conference signaled official union support for the campaign.

Investigation showed that the conference was scheduled during the hours from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.  Following the conference, the campaign held its reception in the same room; the room was reserved for 75 minutes for the reception.  In the evening, the IBT hosted a reception for registered guests in a different conference room. 

On the facts presented, we find no violation of the Rules.  First, the union’s decision to hold regional conferences is consistent with its practice in quinquennial convention years.  The conference program consisted of matters of legitimate interest to union representatives concerning issues the IBT was addressing.  At the central region conference that is the subject of this protest, we find General President Hoffa did not campaign in support of his candidacy during the meeting.  Although he referred during his conference remarks to the IBT reception scheduled for registered attendees and held in the evening following the conference, he did not refer to or invite conference attendees to the campaign reception while addressing the conference.  With respect to the siting of the Hoffa-Hall 2016 reception in the same room as the conference, we find no impermissible union or employer contribution to the campaign.  The room arrangement was made by the campaign directly with the hotel; the campaign asked for the particular room because it saw an advantage in doing so; and both campaigns had notice of the event well in advance and were free to make what arrangements they wished in order to take advantage of the assembled Teamsters.  No allegation or evidence of discrimination was made or found on the part of the IBT or the hotel in this regard.

Accordingly, we DENY this protest.

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:

Kathleen A. Roberts

Election Appeals Master

JAMS

620 Eighth Avenue, 34^th floor

New York, NY 10018

kroberts@jamsadr.com

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, 1050 17^th Street, N.W., Suite 375, Washington, D.C. 20036, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

                                                                        Richard W. Mark

                                                                        Election Supervisor

cc:        Kathleen A. Roberts

            2016 ESD 300

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):