July 26, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Michael Ruscigno, et al.
July 26, 1995
Page 1
James Jacob
1377 Sassaquin Avenue
New Bedford, MA 02745
Michael Ruscigno
302 Summit Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07306
Darryl Sullivan
2059 Richmond
Arlington, TX 76014
Teamsters Joint Council 28
553 John Street
Seattle, WA 98109
Paul Alan Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group
2000 P Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
Michael Ruscigno, et al.
July 26, 1995
Page 1
RE: Election Office Case No. P-063-JC28-EOH
Gentlemen:
Michael Ruscigno, et al.
July 26, 1995
Page 1
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV Section 2 (a) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 I.B.T. International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).[1] The protesters, James Jacob, a member of Teamsters Local 251, Michael Ruscigno, a member of Local Union 138, and Darryl Sullivan, a member of Local Union 745, allege that Joint Council 28 utilized its July, 1994 edition of the Washington Teamster, a union-financed publication, to improperly attack General President Ron Carey and the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”) citing comments which concern closure of the Western Conference and the salaries of certain International Officers.
In response, Joint Council 28 raises several preliminary procedural issues pursuant to Article XIV, Section 1 and 2(a), including the standing of the protesters to pursue the claim, the timeliness of the protest and the failure to refer to a specific provision of the LMRDA or IBT Constitution, in addition to providing its position on the merits.[2] Joint Council 28 further asserts that the contested communication is a typical expression of opinion concerning traditional subjects of general internal union business and, at the time of publication, the elections were over two years away.
The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 8(a), provide the following prohibition, "No publication or communication financed, directly or indirectly, by a Union may be used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy or any person . . ." Section 8(a) sets forth specific illustrations of improper support of a candidate by a Union-financed publication.
A Union-financed publication does not violate the Rules unless the subject of the printed matter was a “candidate” at the time it is published. Ruscigno, P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995). [3]
Michael Ruscigno, et al.
July 26, 1995
Page 1
The Election Officer notes that it does not appear that Mr. Carey was a candidate within the meaning of the Rules in July of 1994. Moreover, while the July, 1994, publication at issue does contain a column which somewhat critically discusses the abolition of the Western Conference and the salaries of certain International officers and staff members, these are subjects of general interest to the membership. The Joint Council may express opinions on the manner in which incumbent officers conduct affairs of the union. See, United Steelworkers v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102, 112 (1982); Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445, 448-49 (2nd Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 946 (1963).
Based on the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.
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.
Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon
180 Maiden Lane, 36th Floor
New York, NY 10038
fax (212) 248 2655
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy
[1]This “reach-back” protest was filed within the thirty day period following the final promulgation of the Rules on April 24, 1995, and 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.
[2] Pursuant to Article XIV, Section 1, any member may file a protest. A member who protests under Article XIV, Section 2(a), is not required to cite specific provisions of the LMRDA or the IBT Constitution, and the protest was timely filed.
[3]Under the Rules, “candidate” is defined as:
[A]ny member who is actively seeking nomination or election for any Convention delegate position or International Officer position. The term includes any member who has accepted any campaign contribution as defined by the Rules or made any expenditure, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution or expenditure is to influence the election of that member to any such position.