March 28, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
Darryl Sullivan
2059 Richmond
Arlington, TX 76014
James Jacob
1377 Sassaquin Avenue
New Bedford, MA 02745
Michael Ruscigno
302 Summit Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07306
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Anthony Rumore, President
Teamsters Joint Council 16
265 W. 14th Street, Room 1201
New York, NY 10011
Alfred O. Panek, President
Teamsters Joint Council 37
1872 N.E. 162nd Avenue
Portland, OR 97230
Lawrence Brennan, President
Teamsters Joint Council 43
2801 Trumbull Avenue
Detroit, MI 48216
James E. Wilkerson, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 14
305 Wall Street
Las Vegas, NV 89114
Lester A. Singer, President
Teamsters Local Union 20
435 S. Hawley Street
Toledo, OH 43609
Philip E. Young, President
Teamsters Local Union 41
4501 Van Brunt Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64130
Jack Cipriani, President
Teamsters Local Union 391
3100 Sandy Ridge Road
Colfax, NC 27235
Robert R. McClone, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 631
307 Wall Street
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Frank J. Wsol, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 710
4217 S. Halsted Street
Chicago, IL 60609
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
T.C. Stone, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 745
1007 Jonelle Street
Dallas, TX 75217
Tony Cannestro, President
Teamsters Local Union 769
8350 N.W. 7th Avenue
Miami, FL 33150
Steven H. Burrus, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 995
300 Shadow Lane
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Wayne A. Rudell
Rudell & O’Neill
8325 E. Jefferson
Detroit, MI 48214
Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
Hugh J. Beins
Beins, Axelrod, Osborne & Mooney
1341 G Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Lewis N. Levy
Levy, Goldman & Levy
3660 Wilshire Boulevard, 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Gerry M. Miller
Previant, Goldberg & Uelmen
1555 N. River Center Drive, Suite 202
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-52-LU14-SCE
(DECISION ON REMAND)
Gentlemen:
This matter was remanded by the Election Appeals Master in In Re: Michael Ruscigno et al., 96 - Elec. App. - 55 (KC) (January 17, 1996). A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(a) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”)[1] by Michael Ruscigno, a member of Local
Union 138, Darryl Sullivan, a member of Local Union 745, and James Jacob, a member of Local Union 251. The protesters alleged that James P. Hoffa used prohibited employer and union contributions to finance his campaign for the office of general president of the IBT.
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
Specifically, the protesters contended that because Mr. Hoffa was employed as an attorney while campaigning, his campaign activities were prohibited employer contributions. Additionally, the protesters alleged that Mr. Hoffa used union funds on numerous occasions to make appearances at various local unions. Finally, the protesters contended that Mr. Hoffa’s current employer, Joint Council 43, has contributed to his campaign by permitting him to campaign on work time.
The Election Officer found that the protesters had presented insufficient evidence that Mr. Hoffa had campaigned for union office while employed as an attorney. She also determined that certain improper union contributions alleged by the protesters, including the use of union funds to finance Mr. Hoffa’s appearance at a Jesse Acuna Defense Fund rally in Las Vegas, had been examined in prior decisions in which she found that no unlawful contribution was made. As to these allegations, the Election Officer found that the protesters offered no evidence of a Rules violation that she had not previously considered.
Concerning other union contributions that were not the subject of prior decisions, protesters alleged that certain unions had financed various campaign appearances by
Mr. Hoffa. The Election Officer determined that on these allegations, the protesters had failed to present evidence that Mr. Hoffa had campaigned during the alleged appearances.
With regard to Mr. Hoffa’s travel to a campaign rally held for him by Local Union 769 in Miami, the Election Officer found that the candidate’s appearance at the rally was incidental to his attendance at the AFL-CIO Executive Board meeting in Bal Harbour, Florida. Finding Mr. Hoffa’s attendance at the AFL-CIO meeting legitimate union business, the Election Officer held that his travel to Florida and lodging there could be supported by union funds.
The Election Officer declined to resolve the remaining allegations in the protest because she determined that they were not properly raised by the protesters in their original protest, including the allegation that Joint Council 43 contributed to Mr. Hoffa’s campaign by permitting him to campaign during work time.
On appeal, the protesters argued that the Election Officer was errant in her conclusion that Mr. Hoffa had not used union funds to campaign at a Jesse Acuna Defense Fund rally in Las Vegas. The protesters charged that her analysis of this allegation was faulty, because she had examined whether Mr. Hoffa’s speech at the rally was a campaign speech, rather than whether he had campaigned while at the rally. The protesters also argued that the Election Officer had failed to use the correct analysis in determining whether Mr. Hoffa’s trip to Miami was unlawfully funded. Finally, the protesters asserted that the Election Officer had failed to consider several allegations that they asserted were raised in their original protest.
The Election Appeals Master affirmed the Election Officer’s determination that
Mr. Hoffa did not maintain a law practice while campaigning for union office, and the conclusions that Mr. Hoffa did not use prohibited contributions to campaign at a rally held in Miami and did not campaign at the Jesse Acuna Defense Fund rally in Las Vegas.
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
The Election Appeals Master found that certain allegations were not investigated by the Election Officer and reversed and remanded the decision to the Election Officer to investigate and determine the following allegations: (1) whether Mr. Hoffa improperly campaigned for Real Teamster candidates at Local Unions 104 and 705; (2) whether Joint Council 43 made improper campaign contributions by permitting Mr. Hoffa to campaign during hours when he was working for the joint council; and (3) whether Mr. Hoffa used union funds to campaign at a rally for the Jesse Acuna Defense Fund in California.
Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens investigated the issues remanded to the Election Officer.
1. Alleged Improper Campaigning for Real Teamster Candidates at Local Unions 104 and 705
A. Appearance at Local Union 104
The protesters allege that Mr. Hoffa campaigned in support of his own candidacy during appearances in Arizona on October 24-26, 1994, which were advertised as appearances on behalf of candidates for the local union officers’ election. Mr. Hoffa contends that his appearances were solely on behalf of the candidates for local union office. In Gilmartin,
P-032-LU245-PNJ (December 12, 1995), the Election Officer found that the protesters had failed to present sufficient evidence that Mr. Hoffa had campaigned in Arizona in October 1994 for his own candidacy, rather than on behalf of candidates for local union office. Relying on her holding in Zero, P-078-LU337-EOH (August 4, 1996), that campaign activity on behalf of a candidate for local union office is not within the scope of the Rules, she held that there was no evidence that Mr. Hoffa’s appearances at Local Union 104 violated the Rules.
The protesters have presented evidence that at Mr. Hoffa’s appearance at Local
Union 104 in Phoenix on October 25, 1994, he gave a speech in which he explained the reasons he decided to become a candidate for general president and measures he would take if elected. Mr. Hoffa encouraged the audience to support his campaign. He did not mention any candidate for local union office. The protesters also presented evidence that the Local
Union 104 secretary-treasurer refused to allow certain persons opposed to Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy to attend a meeting with Mr. Hoffa. Evidence was also presented showing that at the end of his speech on October 25, 1995, Mr. Hoffa offered to sell hats bearing his name and other campaign paraphernalia.
In a case involving charges that Mr. Hoffa campaigned for himself at a Jesse Acuna Defense Fund rally, the Election Officer found that the exclusion of persons opposed to
Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy was indicative that one purpose of the event was to support the Hoffa campaign. See Pope, P-046-JC7-PNJ (October 13, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App.- 35 (KC) (November 14, 1995).
In Gilmartin, supra, the Election Officer outlined the burden of proof borne by a protester who alleges that a candidate has used union funds to campaign in violation of
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 11(c) and Article XII, Section 1(b) of the Rules. She stated there that if the protester presents sufficient evidence that a candidate has campaigned at a particular event, the Election Officer will investigate the source of funding for the expenses related to the appearance.
The Election Officer finds that the protesters provided sufficient specific evidence as to Mr. Hoffa’s appearance at Local Union 104 to meet their initial burden to present evidence of a violation of the Rules prohibiting the use of union funds to assist in campaigning.
In response to the Election Officer’s request, Mr. Hoffa has produced documentation that his visit to Arizona on October 24-26, 1995 was taken on vacation days from his job with Joint Council 43, that his transportation was paid for with personal funds, and that the campaign of Terry Moser, a candidate for officer in the local union, paid for his lodging.
Accordingly, although there is evidence that Mr. Hoffa campaigned for general president while in Arizona, there is no evidence that Mr. Hoffa used union funds to support his appearances at Local Union 104 in October 1995.
B. Appearance at Local Union 705
The protesters allege that Mr. Hoffa campaigned on his own behalf during a campaign rally on March 12, 1995 for local union officer candidates in Local Union 705 in Chicago. In Zero, supra, the Election Officer determined that Mr. Hoffa did not campaign on his own behalf at the rally and did not utilize union funds to travel to the rally. The protesters have offered no evidence that Mr. Hoffa campaigned for general president during his appearance at the Local Union 705 rally in Chicago. Thus, the Election Officer concludes that there has been insufficient proof of an improper campaign contribution with respect to Mr. Hoffa’s appearance at Local Union 705.
2. Campaigning During Time Paid by Joint Council 43
The protesters allege that Mr. Hoffa campaigned while working as an employee of Joint Council 43 and, thus, Joint Council 43 made unlawful contributions to his campaign. The protesters contend that Mr. Hoffa campaigned while on union time at the following events:
Alleged Campaign Event Date
A. Campaigning at Local Union 745 August 1993
B. Rally in D.C. Against Abolition of Area Conferences April 1994
C. Campaigning at Local Union 104 October 1994
D. Appearance on Local Unions 63 and 208’s Picket Line January 20, 1995
E. Jesse Acuna Defense Fund Rally in California January 21, 1995
F. Appearance on Miami TV Show February 16, 1995
G. Appearance at Local Union 769 in Miami February 16, 1995
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
H. AFL-CIO Executive Board Meeting in Florida February 19-23, 1995
I. Campaigning at Local Union 705 March 12, 1995
J. Jesse Acuna Defense Fund Rally in Las Vegas March 25, 1995
K. Appearance in Atlanta September 1995
L. Appearances in California Bay Area September 22, 1995
M Campaigning in New York City October 23-24, 1995
As outlined above, the Election Officer requires the protesters to present evidence that Mr. Hoffa campaigned at the events in order to investigate whether the events were supported by union funds.
A. Campaigning at Local Union 745
In support of their allegation that Mr. Hoffa campaigned at Local Union 745 in Dallas, Texas in August 1993, the protesters rely on a leaflet allegedly stating that Mr. Hoffa’s “travels beginning in 1993 were part of the process of preparing his candidacy.” The Election Officer has previously held that Mr. Hoffa did not become a candidate until March 1994. See Crawley, P-027-LU988-PNJ, et seq. (August 23, 1995).
In the absence of any evidence that Mr. Hoffa was campaigning at an event sponsored by Local Union 745 in Dallas in August 1993, the Election Officer will not revise her conclusion as to when Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy commenced. The Election Officer finds insufficient proof that Mr. Hoffa made a campaign appearance in August 1993. Therefore, pursuant to Gilmartin, she will not inquire as to whether Mr. Hoffa attended the event on union time.
B. Rally in Washington, D.C. Against Abolition of Area Conferences
The protesters allege that Mr. Hoffa was campaigning at a rally held in Washington, D.C. against the decision of the IBT to abolish its area conferences. The Election Officer found in Sullivan, P-053 -LU391-EOH (July 10, 1995) that there was no evidence that
Mr. Hoffa campaigned there. The protesters offer no evidence of campaigning. Accordingly, the Election Officer will not inquire as to whether Mr. Hoffa attended the event on union time.
C. Campaigning at Local Union 104
The Election Officer found in Part I.A., supra, that Mr. Hoffa documented that his trip to Arizona in October 1994 was taken on his vacation days rather than on union time.
D. Appearance on Local Unions 63 and 208’s Picket Lines
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
The protesters allege that Mr. Hoffa campaigned for his own candidacy while visiting a picket line in California for striking workers from Local Unions 63 and 208 on Friday, January 20, 1995. The protesters support their allegation noting a leaflet from the Hoffa campaign that states that picketers chanted, “Hoffa, Hoffa, Hoffa” and “Where is Carey? Where is Carey?” Mr. Hoffa has documented that he traveled to Los Angeles on January 19, 1995 after work and took a vacation day on January 20, 1995. Accordingly, this visit to California on January 20, 1995, even if he engaged in campaigning, was not on union time.
E. Jesse Acuna Defense Fund Rally in California
The Jesse Acuna Defense Fund rally in El Monte, California took place on Saturday, January 21, 1996. Therefore, Mr. Hoffa’s appearance there was not on union time, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
F. Appearance on Miami TV Show
The protesters allege that Mr. Hoffa taped a campaign appearance on a television show in Miami on February 16, 1995. Mr. Hoffa has documented that he took a day of vacation on that day. Thus, there is no evidence that he made this appearance on union time.
G. Appearance at Local Union 769 in Miami
The Election Officer previously found that Local Union 769 held a campaign rally for Mr. Hoffa in Miami on February 16, 1995. Evans, P-030-LU769-SEC (September 27, 1995). However, as stated above, Mr. Hoffa has documented that he took a vacation day on the day of the rally. His campaign appearance at Local Union 769 was, therefore, not on union time.
H. AFL-CIO Executive Board Meeting in Florida
In Gilmartin, supra, the Election Officer determined that Mr. Hoffa used funds from Joint Council 43 to attend the AFL-CIO Executive Board meeting in Bal Harbour, Florida February 19-23, 1995. She further determined that Mr. Hoffa’s trip was for legitimate union business and that he did not campaign while at the meeting. The protesters have presented no evidence that Mr. Hoffa campaigned while at Bal Harbour.
I. Campaigning at Local Union 705
The allegation that Mr. Hoffa campaigned at Local Union 705 on March 12, 1995 was addressed in Section 1.B of this decision. No evidence of campaigning by Mr. Hoffa for general president at this local union was found.
J. Jesse Acuna Defense Fund Rally in Las Vegas
The rally for the Jesse Acuna Defense Fund in Las Vegas was held on Saturday,
March 25, 1995. The Election Officer has previously found that some campaign activity occurred at the rally, although sufficient evidence has not been presented that Mr. Hoffa campaigned at the event. Pope, P-046-JC7-EOH, aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 35 (KC)
(November 14, 1995). Moreover, this event was held on a Saturday and is therefore determined not to be on union time.
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
K. Appearance in Atlanta
The only evidence presented by the protesters to support their claim that Mr. Hoffa campaigned in Atlanta pertains to an appearance there on Saturday, September 30, 1995. The Election Officer presumes that Mr. Hoffa’s appearance on a Saturday was not on union time.
L. Appearances in California Bay Area
The protesters submitted a press release from the Hoffa campaign listing various appearances by Mr. Hoffa in the San Francisco area on September 22, 1995. Mr. Hoffa has documented that he took vacation days September 20-22, 1995. Thus, there is no evidence that Mr. Hoffa campaigned in the San Francisco area on September 22, 1995 on union time.
M. Campaigning in New York City
In Kornegay, P-209-IBT-SCE (December 12, 1995), the Election Officer reviewed Mr. Hoffa’s time records and concluded that Mr. Hoffa used unpaid leave to attend the AFL-CIO Convention in New York City on October 23-24, 1995. The protesters have not supplied any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, they have not shown that Mr. Hoffa attended this event on union time.
The evidence that has been presented indicates that Mr. Hoffa did not appear on union time at any of the events alleged by the protesters. Therefore, the Election Officer finds no merit in the contention that Mr. Hoffa’s employer, Joint Council 43, contributed to his campaign by permitting him to campaign while on the job.
3. Expenses of Attending Jesse Acuna Defense Fund Rally in California
The protesters, in Gilmartin, supra, alleged that Mr. Hoffa used union funds to travel to California to campaign at the Jesse Acuna Defense Fund rally in El Monte, California on January 21, 1995. In that decision, the Election Officer examined documentation presented by Mr. Hoffa and concluded that Mr. Hoffa did not use union funds for any expenses incurred in making this appearance. The protesters have presented no evidence undermining this conclusion.
Based on the foregoing, the allegations that Mr. Hoffa improperly campaigned for candidates for local union officer in Local Unions 104 and 705, that Joint Council 43 made unlawful campaign contributions to Mr. Hoffa’s campaign by permitting him to campaign on union time, and that Mr. Hoffa used union funds to campaign at a Jesse Acuna Defense Fund rally in California are each DENIED.
Darryl Sullivan, et al.
March 28, 1996
Page 1
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator
[1]This “reach-back” protest was filed within the 30-day period following the final promulgation of the Rules on April 24, 1995 and, in some instances, alleges violations occurring prior to the issuance of the Rules. The Rules, at Article XIV, Section 2(a), state:
Protests regarding violations of the [Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, as amended] (including violations of the IBT Constitution) allegedly occurring prior to the date of issuance of the Rules and protests regarding any conduct allegedly occurring within the first twenty-eight (28) days after issuance of the Rules must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance, or such protests shall be waived.