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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 28, 1995

 

 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

 


Daryl Sullivan, et al.

September 28, 1995

Page 1

 

 

Darryl Sullivan

2059 Richmond

Arlington, TX 76014

 

Michael Ruscigno

303 Summit Avenue

Jersey City, NJ  07306

 

James Jacob

1377 Sassaquin Avenue

New Bedford, MA  02745

 

Ron Carey, General President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC  20001


Ohio Conference of Teamsters

435 S. Hawley Street

Toledo, OH  43609

 

John J. Sullivan, Associate General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC  20001

 

Paul Alan Levy

Public Citizen Litigation Group

1600 20th St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

 

Sorrell Logothetis

Logothetis, Pence and Doll

111 W. First Street, Suite 1100

Dayton, OH 45402


Daryl Sullivan, et al.

September 28, 1995

Page 1

 

 

 

Re:              Election Office Case No. P-075-AC-EOH

 

Gentlemen:

 

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”) by Darryl Sullivan, a member of Teamsters Local 745,  Michael Ruscigno, a member of Teamsters


Daryl Sullivan, et al.

September 28, 1995

Page 1

 

 

Local 138 and James Jacob, a member of Teamsters Local 251.[1]  The protesters allege that the four former area conferences, as well as the Ohio Conference, used their publications to attack International General President Ron Carey in violation of the Rules and that the Ohio Conference impermissibly contributed the use of its tractor trailer to the campaign of James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, by, among other things, driving it to Las Vegas for what the protesters term a “Hoffa rally.” 

 

The Ohio Conference responded that there is no official publication of the Ohio Conference, and that a former publication, The Ohio Teamster, has not been issued for at least seven years.    The Ohio Conference also responded that its tractor trailer, known as the "Blue Goose," is used for educational, civic, charitable and ceremonial purposes.  The Blue Goose was in Las Vegas to deliver materials, including registration packets, paraphernalia, workshop materials, flags, convention supplies, clothing resale stock, and audio, electronic, and office supplies for distribution or use at the International Teamsters Women’s Conference (“ITWC”) Convention.  According to the Conference, the Blue Goose was driven from the convention to a rally and fundraiser for Jesse Acuna’s legal defense fund pursuant to an invitation from Steven Burrus, Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 995 in Las Vegas. 

 

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

 

With respect to any publications by the four area conferences, such conferences were abolished by President Carey on June 1, 1994.  There have been no conference publications as such since that date.  Moreover, only one issue of the Southern Conference’s United We Stand, published in 1993, was submitted in support of the protest, although the protesters allege violations of the Rules in all of the area conference publications.  The protest makes reference to the April 1994 issue of A Report from the Western Conference of Teamsters but no copy of the publication was ever submitted to the Election Officer. 

 

The protesters further allege that the publication of the Ohio Conference also attacked the candidacy of Mr. Carey, in violation of the Rules.  The Ohio Conference, however, does not have such a publication.  A newsletter loosely connected with the Ohio Conference, The Ohio Teamster, has not been published for seven years. 


Daryl Sullivan, et al.

September 28, 1995

Page 1

 

 

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, except as authorized by Sections 8 and 9 of this Article . . .”

 

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).  The Election Officer has previously determined that Mr. Carey was not a candidate in April 1994, when A Report from the Western Conference of Teamsters was alleged to have been published, or in June 1994, when the area conferences were abolished and production of their publications was discontinued.  Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (August 17, 1995).  As the protested publications either did not exist or ceased to exist prior to Mr. Carey’s becoming a candidate, there is no violation of the Rules with respect to these publications.

 

The protesters also allege that the Ohio Conference sent its tractor trailer to a "Hoffa rally" in Las Vegas. 

 

Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules reads, in relevant part, “No union funds or other things of value shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual.  Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigns . . .”

 

The investigation disclosed that on March 25, 1995, Local Unions 995, 14 and 631 in Las Vegas organized a rally at Local Union 995 to raise funds for Jesse Acuna, a Teamster sentenced to prison because of an incident occurring on a picket line during a strike.  Mr. Hoffa was a guest speaker at the event.  The rally was scheduled to coincide with the ITWC Convention, which was also held in Las Vegas.  On March 14, 1995, Mr. Burrus sent a letter to Lester Singer, President of the Ohio Conference, in which Mr. Burrus inquired if, since he knew the Blue Goose would be in Las Vegas for the ITWC Convention, the tractor trailer could attend the Acuna rally as well to be a "morale booster."  This invitation letter made no mention of Mr. Hoffa or any guest speaker. 

On March 25, the Blue Goose was driven to the site of the rally for Mr. Acuna. The tractor trailer had no campaign signs for Mr. Hoffa.   A rally attendee states he asked the driver of the Blue Goose what he was doing at the event.  According to this witness, the driver responded, “We’re here for Hoffa.”  This evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Blue Goose was at the rally to promote Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy in violation of the Rules.

 

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:

 


Daryl Sullivan, et al.

September 28, 1995

Page 1

 

 

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:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Joyce Goldstein, 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 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.