This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters













              July 26, 1995



James Jacob, 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 42

1616 West Ninth St., Room 500

Los Angeles, CA  90015


Local Union 166

18597 Valley Blvd.

Bloomington, CA 92316


Paul Alan Levy, Esq.

Public Citizen Litigation Group

2000 P Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC  20036



James Jacob, et al.

July 26, 1995

Page 1


RE:  Election Office Case No. P-064-JC42-EOH





James Jacob, et al.

July 26, 1995

Page 1


A protest was filed pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 I.B.T. International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”)[1] by 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, who contend that the Southern California Teamster, a newspaper published by Joint Council 42, has been used to oppose candidates for International office in violation of the RulesThe protesters specifically cite the February through June and October, 1994, issues of the newspaper for attacking General President Ron Carey and his administration, including International Vice President Ken Mee.


Joint Council 42 and Local Union 166, whose Secretary-Treasurer wrote a column in the Southern California Teamster allegedly unlawfully attacking Mr. Mee, respond that their right to criticize the administration of the Union is protected by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, as amended ("LMRDA").


The investigation was conducted by Election Office Staff Attorney Helene Boetticher.


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 of any person, except as authorized by Sections 8 and 9 of this Article . . .” Section 8(a) also sets forth specific illustrations of improper support by a Union-financed publication.


As the Election Officer stated in Ruscigno, P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995), in determining whether a Union-financed publication violates this prohibition, the Election Officer must first determine if the subject of the communication was a "candidate"[2] when the communication was made.  It does not appear to the Election Officer that either Mr. Carey or Mr. Mee was a candidate within the meaning of the Rules when the protested issues of the Southern California Teamster were published.



James Jacob, et al.

July 26, 1995

Page 1


Furthermore, the cited issues of the Southern California Teamster criticize proposals by Mr. Carey and his administration such as the effort to increase dues, to abolish the Area Conferences, to strike UPS, and to create a new Joint Council in California.  The column by the Local Union 166 Secretary-Treasurer criticizes Mr. Mee in the context of a discussion of the lack of merit of the proposed dues increase which was supported by Mr. Mee.  None of the protested articles support or attack the candidacy of any person or the elections for International officer. 


The Joint Council and its affiliated Local Unions 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).


For the foregoing reasons, 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.






Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer


cc:               Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy

Dolly M. Gee, Regional Coordinator

[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] Under the Rules,"candidate" is defined as:


[A]ny member who is actively seeking nomination or election for any Convention delegate or alternate 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.