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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

              September 20, 1995

 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

 


Rose Caravello

September 20, 1995

Page 1

 

 

Rose Caravello

20283 Bradford

Detroit, MI 48205

 

Diana Kilmury, Vice President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

2612 E. 47th Avenue

Vancouver, British Columbia

Canada V5S 1C1

 

Ron Carey, General President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

 

John J. Sullivan, Assoc. General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001


Lawrence Brennan, President

Teamsters Joint Council 43

2801 Trumbull Avenue

Detroit, MI 48216

 

William T. Hogan, Jr., President

Teamsters Joint Council 25

1645 W. Jackson, 6th Floor

Chicago, IL 60612

 

T. C. Stone, President

Texas Conference of Teamsters

1007 Jonelle Street

Dallas, TX 75217

 

 


Rose Caravello

September 20, 1995

Page 1

 

 

 

RE:  Election Office Case No. P-153-IBT-SCE

 

Gentlemen:

 

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 Rose Caravello, a member of Local Union 337.  The protester alleges that International Vice President-At-Large Diana Kilmury, Co-Chair of the Human Rights Commission of the IBT ("HRC"), used union resources to distribute a letter, with a petition and excerpts from a magazine article attached, attacking the candidacies of Lawrence Brennan, William Hogan, and T. C. Stone in a mailing dated August 15, 1995, in violation of the Rules.

 


Rose Caravello

September 20, 1995

Page 1

 

 

Ms. Kilmury does not dispute that she sent the protested mailing to all principal officers of the IBT[1] but contends that the excerpts of the magazine article attached to the protest was not the document she distributed with her letter.  Instead, Ms. Kilmury maintains in her mailing she included an excerpt from an article entitled “Hoffa Lives,” published in the July 31, 1995 edition of New York magazine, a letter dated August 9, 1995 to Ms. Kilmury from Cheryl Johnson, President of the International Teamster Women’s Caucus, a letter dated August 14, 1995 from Ms. Kilmury to Ms. Johnson, a letter dated August 15, 1995 requesting members to sign a petition directed to the Human Rights Commission of the IBT which “condemn the anti-woman statements made by Brothers William T. Hogan, Jr., Lawrence Brennan and T. C. Stone contained in the “Hoffa Lives” article” and demanding a public apology, with the petition and the IBT Human Rights Policy attached.

 

The IBT responds that by distributing the information and documents, Ms. Kilmury did not engage in campaigning but expressed her views on a subject of significant interest to the members.  The IBT further argues that this matter has no nexus to the election which the Election Officer was installed to oversee.

 

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.

 

Article VIII, Section 11(c) of the Rules reads:

 

Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigning unless the Union is reimbursed at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are notified in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance.  Union officers and employees provided with Union-owned or leased cars, if otherwise afforded the right to utilize those cars for personal activities, may use the cars for campaign activities, provided no costs, or expenses incurred as a consequence, of such use are paid out of Union funds or other prohibited sources.

Ms. Caravello first alleges that Ms. Kilmury’s letter and petition, which were printed on IBT stationery and distributed through the use of union funds and resources, constituted a violation of Article VIII, Section 11 of the Rules because it promoted Ms. Kilmury’s candidacy while attacking the candidacies of Mr. Brennan, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Stone by “inflaming gender prejudice.”

 


Rose Caravello

September 20, 1995

Page 1

 

 

The use of union resources to produce or circulate a document does not violate the Rules unless the printed matter constitutes campaigning.  The investigation revealed that

Ms. Kilmury and Mr. Hogan were candidates at the time Ms. Kilmury’s letter was issued.  There is no evidence, however, that Mr. Brennan or Mr. Stone were candidates at the time.

 

Criticism of or by a candidate does not rise to the level of campaigning under the Rules if the union-financed communication was produced as a result of a union officer’s proper execution of his or her duties.  As one leading case held under Section 401(g):

 

Duly elected union officials have a right and a responsibility to exercise the powers of their office and to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern.

Camarata v. Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981).  Accord, Donovan v. Metro. Dist. Of Carpenters, 797 F.2d 140, 145 (3d Cir. 1986).

 

As Ms. Kilmury states in her letter to members of the union, her role as co-chair of the HRC is to “promote recognition of the strength [the IBT] draws from the diversity in [its] ranks and of the need to eliminate all forms of discrimination which may divide [the membership].”  Ms. Kilmury’s letter criticizes Messrs. Hogan, Brennan, and Stone, because of sexist remarks they allegedly made as reported in the New York magazine article.  In the letter, the three are referred to as “high-ranking officials.”  Ms. Kilmury makes no reference to their candidacy or to the International officer election.  Instead, she encourages recipients of the letter to communicate their displeasure to the HRC.  Attached to the letter, Ms. Kilmury circulated a petition form for those who agree with her to sign and return to the HRC.

 

The publication and circulation of such a letter falls within the realm of an HRC chairperson’s duties and responsibilities.  Her communication in this capacity referred to   legitimate union business unrelated to the election.   See New Watch Dog Comm. v.

New York City Drivers Union, 438 F. Supp. 1242, 1251 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).  As a result, with no additional language referring to the upcoming election or to the candidacy of any individual, Ms. Kilmury’s letter does not support or attack a candidate in violation of the Rules.

 

The protester further alleges that the use of union funds to circulate an excerpt from New York magazine, which accompanied the protested letter and petition, constituted an additional violation of the Rules.  Ms. Caravello contends that the “inclusion of a selectively ‘edited’ excerpt. . . with all material critical of Mr. Carey omitted, was plainly used by

Ms. Kilmury for partisan purposes.”  In support of this allegation, Ms. Caravello provided the Election Officer with a document which included an article excerpt containing the comments criticized by Ms. Kilmury and a message which opposed the candidacy of James Hoffa.  The statement was followed by the message, “Printed by Teamsters for a Democratic Union.”

 

 


Rose Caravello

September 20, 1995

Page 1

 

 

The Election Officer’s investigation revealed that the document submitted by

Ms. Caravello was not the document Ms. Kilmury attached to her letter of censure.  When Ms. Kilmury mailed her letter, she included an unmarked, unaltered photocopy of the cover page of the magazine, and pages 26 through 28 of the July 31, 1995 issue of New York magazine.  Such an attachment on its own does not constitute a violation of the Rules, nor does it transform a non-violative communication into a violation because it was intended to provide evidence that the statements criticized by Ms. Kilmury had been uttered.

 

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 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:               Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator

Gwen K. Randall, Regional Coordinator

 

 


[1]Ms. Kilmury’s mailing list included all Local Union principal officers, members of the Human Rights Commission, most of the General Executive Board, the Planning Committee of the Civil Rights Conference of the IBT, and others.