August 23, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Michael J. Riley
August 23, 1995
Page 1
Michael J. Riley, President
Teamsters Joint Council 42
1616 W. 97th Street, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Ed J. Mireles, President
Teamsters Joint Council 92
140 S. Marks Way, Suite 92
Orange, CA 92668
Jack D. Cox, Vice President
Teamsters Joint Council 92
140 S. Marks Way, Suite 92
Orange, CA 92668
John J. Sullivan
Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Susan Davis, Esq.
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Michael J. Riley
August 23, 1995
Page 1
RE: Election Office Case No. P-101-IBT-EOH
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Officer Election (“Rules”) by Michael J. Riley, President of Teamsters Joint Council 42, on behalf of himself and Joint Council 42. The protester alleges that Ron Carey, General President of the IBT, Edward J. Mireles, President of Joint Council 92, Jack D. Cox, Vice President of Joint Council 92, the IBT and Joint Council 92, violated the Rules by improperly using the June 1995 issue of the official publication of Joint Council 92, The Members’ Bulletin, to promote the candidacies of
Mr. Carey for General President and Mr. Mireles and Mr. Cox for unspecified positions. Further, the protester alleges that Mr. Carey traveled to Joint Council 92 in April 1995 to campaign, using union funds, in violation of the Rules.
Michael J. Riley
August 23, 1995
Page 1
Mr. Mireles responded that the visit of Mr. Carey to the Joint Council is newsworthy. In support of this contention, he points to the fact that prior visits by former and current General Presidents (in 1980, 1989 and 1993) have traditionally been the source of front-page news for the publications of union entities in Southern California.[1]
The IBT does not dispute the fact that Mr. Carey’s visit was financed by the International Union. The IBT responded that Mr. Carey traveled to and met with the members of Joint Council 92 on matters of interest to them and discussed substantive and programmatic issues with officials and members of the Local Unions that comprise the Joint Council. Thus Mr. Carey properly exercised his responsibility to advise and report to the general membership. The IBT also contends that Mr. Carey’s appearance was newsworthy, the coverage given to the visit was of interest to affected members, and was not out of proportion.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Helene Boetticher.
In support of his protest, Mr. Riley cites the June 1995 issue of The Members’ Bulletin, a 15-page newsletter funded by Joint Council 92. The newsletter is printed on 8½-by-11-inch paper and contains three articles, seven columns devoted to the news of member Local Unions, and 18 photographs with captions. The first article covers Mr. Carey’s visit and speech to Joint Council 92. Coverage consists of approximately one page of print and five pictures. Mr. Carey appears in three of these pictures. One picture is of Mr. Carey speaking, another is of Mr Carey with members or officials of Joint Council 92, and the third is of Mr. Carey with members of Local Union 63. The remaining 16 pages of the newsletter are devoted to articles and columns of local interest which do not report on Mr. Carey’s visit or his speech. In the "Local 578" column on page 14, the Local Union Secretary-Treasurer thanks members who attended the April 30 meeting "to hear the member report given by General President Ron Carey." On the same page is a photograph of two Local Union 578 stewards greeting Mr. Carey.
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) also sets forth specific illustrations of improper support of a candidate in a union-financed publication. Using pictures or articles indicating support of a candidate and featuring a candidate to the exclusion of others are two examples of the criteria listed in Article VIII, Section 8.
Michael J. Riley
August 23, 1995
Page 1
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.[2] Ruscigno, P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995). The Election Officer has previously found Mr. Carey was a candidate in April 1995, when he delivered the speech to Joint Council 92. Martin, P-10-IBT-PNJ, et al. (August 18, 1995). Mr. Cox was a candidate at the time of the publication.[3] The Election Officer has no evidence that Mr. Mireles was a candidate at the time of the publication.
Because Mr. Carey and Mr. Cox were a candidates at the time of the allegedly prohibited publication, the Election Officer applies the criteria in the Rules and considers the “tone, content and timing” of the publication in question. See, Ruscigno, P-067-LU20-EOH (July 19, 1995). The Election Officer has previously recognized that where allegations of campaigning by an incumbent officer who is a candidate arise she must distinguish between activity that constitutes performing the functions and duties of the incumbent’s office and campaigning. See, Martin, supra.
The article and pictures in the June of 1995 bulletin, while complimentary of
Mr. Carey, discuss issues which are of interest to the membership. Mr. Carey was introduced in complimentary terms by Mr. Mireles. Although Mr. Mireles praised Mr. Carey in glowing terms during his introduction, the introduction of a visiting General President falls squarely within the regular functions of a Joint Council president. Donovan v. Metro. Dist. Council, 797 F.2d 140, 145 (3rd Cir. 1986). The introductory language, while complimentary, was not excessive. Mr. Carey’s speech covered a variety of subjects, including master contracts for UPS, freight, and the car haulers and the organizing campaign at Overnite. After Mr. Carey’s prepared remarks, the floor was open for questions from the membership.
Michael J. Riley
August 23, 1995
Page 1
While Mr. Carey was a candidate at the time he gave his speech in April 1995, the Election Officer will not view all reporting concerning Mr. Carey to be impermissible campaigning by an incumbent candidate. New Watch-Dog Comm. v. New York City Taxi Drivers Union, 438 F. Supp. 1242, 1251 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Mr. Carey’s speech dealt with issues over which the General President has a responsibility and addressed matters of concern to the membership. See, Donovan v. Metro. Dist. Council, 797 F.2d 140, 145 (3rd Cir. 1986), citing Camarata, 478 F. Supp. at 330. As a result, Mr. Carey’s appearance at Joint
Council 92 was not campaigning and the publication of his appearance was not in violation of the Rules.
Mr. Cox appears in the publication’s second article, which begins on page four and which notes Local Union 572's 55th anniversary. Mr. Cox has been secretary-treasurer of the Local Union for over 30 years, and figures prominently in the text. A photo of Mr. Cox and the Attorney General of California appears at the head of the article. Mr. Cox is the author of Local Union 572's column on page 12. In it, he publishes reports from business representatives, broken down by employer. A photograph of Mr. Cox, a business agent, and two Price Club employee members appears at the end of the column. The coverage of
Mr. Cox pertains directly to his duties in the Local Union and does not violate the Rules.
While not finding Mr. Mireles a candidate at the time of this publication, it is also noted that his coverage in The Members’ Bulletin was addressed to his regular functions, policies and activities. Mr. Mireles is president of Joint Council 92 and secretary-treasurer of Local Union 952. He appears in a photograph on the first page in which he shares the rostrum with Mr. Carey during Mr. Carey’s presentation to the membership. In the article that accompanies the photograph, Mr. Mireles’s introduction of Mr. Carey is described. In the third article, which begins on page 6, Mr. Mireles’s "and the entire E-board" are described as being so impressed with a Local Union’s women’s seminar that they voted unanimously to hold a regional conference on women’s issues. Mr. Mireles does not appear again until
page 15, where a group photo that includes him is followed by a column that Mr. Mireles writes as principal officer of Local Union 952. In the column, he passes on employer information submitted by stewards and business representatives, congratulates a newly appointed shop steward and new retirees, offers condolences for the families of recently deceased members, and informs members of the location of various picketing sites. The last page of the publication includes an editorial by Mr. Mireles in which he explains his policy of support for car haul members.
Based upon 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 their 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:
Michael J. Riley
August 23, 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: Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy
Dolly Gee, Regional Coordinator
[1]Mr. Mireles specifically cites the Winter 1992 issue of Teamster Local 986 Reporter which documents the visit of Mr. Carey, and the April 1989 issue of the Southern California Teamster, published by Joint Council 42, which documents the visit of former General President William McCarthy.
[2]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.
[3]The Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Report for the period January 1, 1992 through May 20, 1995 (filed by Mr. Cox with the Election Officer pursuant to the June 1995 filing deadline) indicates a contribution to his campaign on May 31, 1995. The Election Officer finds he was a candidate based upon this receipt of a campaign contribution.