Protest Decisions

November 1, 1995

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Randy Olson

November 1, 1995

Page 1

Randy Olson

1825 San Jose Street

San Leandro, CA 94577

Chuck Mack, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 70

70 Hegenberger Road

Oakland, CA 94621

Toni Delacorte

Delacorte/Shinoff

145 Natoma Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94105

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098

Paul Alan Levy

Public Citizen Litigation Group

1600 20th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

Randy Olson

November 1, 1995

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-172-LU70-CSF

Gentlemen:

This pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-96 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Randy Olson, a member of Local Union 70.  The protest charges that Local Union 70 improperly made contributions to the election campaign of James P. Hoffa for the office of general president and engaged in conduct constituting an endorsement of his candidacy.

The protest is supported by the protest letter and subsequent statement of Attorney Paul Alan Levy made on behalf of the protester.  On September 22, 1995, Mr. Levy states he anonymously received a copy of a press advisory announcing Mr. Hoffa’s appearance schedule for that same day.  The advisory concludes as follows:

CONTACT:  Teamsters Local 70

Chuck Mack [at] 510-569-9334 or

Toni Delacorte [of] Delacorte/Shinoff [at] 415-495-1991

Randy Olson

November 1, 1995

Page 1

Upon receiving the press advisory, Mr. Levy placed a call to the phone number listed after Mr. Mack’s name.  A male voice answered.  Mr. Levy asked if “this was Local 70?”  When the man answered “yes,” Mr. Levy hung up.

Based upon the press advisory and the telephone call, the protester asserts that the

San Francisco public relations firm of Delacorte/Shinoff was paid by Local Union 70 to prepare the press release, in violation of the Rules.  This information also serves as the basis for the additional allegation that Local Union 70 supplied staff and equipment to assist the Hoffa campaign.  Finally, the protest questions whether or not the use of Mr. Mack’s name, telephone number and his local union designation on the press release constitutes a prohibited endorsement.

Local Union 70 denies that any union funds or contributions in the form of staff, equipment or endorsements were made to the Hoffa campaign by Local Union 70.  

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.

On August 17, 1995, Joseph L. Silva, Jr., President of Local Union 70,  sent a letter to General President Ron Carey.  The letter reports that on September 22, 1995, the “Chuck Mack Election Committee” had agreed with the local union to rent its auditorium on certain specified terms and conditions.  The letter further assured Mr. Carey that the agreement was “identical to that offered to groups not affiliated with either the labor movement or Teamsters Local 70” and was “arm’s length” in nature.   At the close of his letter, Mr. Silva committed Local Union 70 to making “its auditorium available to you under the same terms and conditions subject only to availability considerations.”  Under these arrangements, Mr. Hoffa made an appearance at the local union hall on September 22, 1995.

Mr. Silva’s letter was made available to the Election Office by Chuck Mack, Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 70.  Mr. Mack stated that Local Union 70 did not pay for the union auditorium in which Mr. Hoffa appeared.  Mr. Hoffa’s travel or other expenses were not reimbursed by Local Union 70.   No local union funds were used, according to Mr. Mack, in connection with any of the events which took place on September 22, 1995.   

Some employees of Local Union 70 did accompany Mr. Hoffa to the various events scheduled on that day.  But Mr. Mack states that all these members used vacation time and were not paid by the Local Union 70.  Some local union business agents, stewards, staff, and even

Mr. Mack himself, sold tickets to a reception dinner held in the evening.  Such sales were strictly limited to non-work time.

The investigation further disclosed that the public relations firm of Delacorte/Shinoff produced two advisories.  Both were issued on the firm’s letterhead and were distributed through “Businesswire,” an electronic medium which reaches only local news outlets and not the general public.  The first press release contained only Ms. Delacorte’s name as the contact person.  The second, a revised copy, announced several more events and added Mr. Mack’s name as a contact.  The telephone number appearing after Mr. Mack’s name in the press release

Randy Olson

November 1, 1995

Page 1

is that of his private line located in the offices of  Local Union 70.  The placement of Mr. Mack’s number on the advisory was accomplished without his prior knowledge or consent. 

Both Mr. Mack and Delacorte/Shinoff verified that the costs of producing the press releases were borne by the “Mack Support Team,” and not by Local Union 70.  Ms. Delacorte specifically stated that her public relations firm received no funds or payments from Local

Union 70 for any services performed in connection with the press releases and Mr. Hoffa’s appearances.

The press contact telephone listing produced three calls.  One of these calls was initiated by Mr. Levy.  Another call was made by KPFA radio, seeking additional information.  This call was redirected by Mr. Mack to Ms. Delacorte.  Mr. Mack states that he received a third call requesting ticket information.  Mr. Mack stated that the union “did not sell tickets,” and hung up.  

The Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(b), permit union members, including union officers, to participate in campaign activities and to openly support or oppose any candidate subject to the following restrictions:

[S]uch campaigning must not involve the expenditure of Union funds.  Accordingly, officers and employees (and other members) of the Union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the Union.  Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, violative of this section.

The Election Officer credits the statements of Mr. Mack and Ms. Delacorte with respect to the charge that union funds were used in connection with the press releases, the publicity for and the campaign activities engaged in on behalf of Mr. Hoffa on September 22, 1995.  The documents provided were corroborative of these statements.  No evidence was presented by the protester, either in support of their allegations or in rebuttal of the assertions of Mr. Mack and Ms. Delacorte.  The rental of the auditorium was specifically reported to Mr. Carey and offered to him on similar “arm’s length” terms.  No violation of the Rules is noted on these facts.

The use of Mr. Mack’s name, telephone number and local union number on the press release does not constitute a local union endorsement of Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy.  Certainly no union entity may promote or make contributions to any candidate for International office.  However, a union officer may, in the capacity of a member, endorse candidates for International office and publicize such endorsements by using the designation of their local union office and the position they hold for purposes of identification.   Elder, Election Office Case

No. P-1038-LU6-MOI (November 6, 1991).

Randy Olson

November 1, 1995

Page 1

Union funds, facilities and equipment may not be used to campaign unless the requirements of Article VIII, Section 11(c) are followed.[1]  The use of the union telephone was limited to conversations of short duration.  Only a modest deviation from Mr. Mack’s customary duties were caused by these calls.  The use of union telephone equipment to assist in campaigning during work time, even when such activity is not consequential in terms of time, however, violates the Rules.

For the foregoing reasons, the protest is GRANTED in so far as it alleges a violation of Article VIII, Section 11(c) for improper use of union resources and is DENIED in all other respects.

When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.”  Article XIV, Section 4.  The Election Officer recently held as follows in Giacumbo, P-102-IBT-PNJ (October 12, 1995):

The Rules provide a wide range of examples of possible remedies, without providing any limitation.  The broad scope of her supervisory responsibility for the elections, as recognized by the Consent Decree and subsequent decisions of the Court, gives the Election Officer substantial discretion in formulating a remedy to fit the particular violation.  In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer looks to such factors as the nature and seriousness of the violation, the violations’s potential for interfering with the election process, and which remedy will best protect the rights of members to a free and fair election.             

Mr. Mack’s violation of Article VIII, Section 11(c) is mitigated by the fact that his name and telephone number was placed in the press advisory without his knowledge or consent.  The use of union equipment and the time expended was insignificant.  An order to cease and desist from prohibited conduct is appropriate.  Mr. Mack is ordered that, unless Local Union 70 permits similar campaign activity on behalf of all candidates on a nondiscrim-inatory basis, he shall not utilize that union’s resources to campaign.  Similarly, the public relations firm of Delecorte/Shinoff and Toni Delecorte is ordered not to encourage or cause the improper use of union resources for campaign purposes, as it did here, by including in its press releases or advisories the local union’s telephone number.

Randy Olson

November 1, 1995

Page 1

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.

Latham and Watkins

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY  10022 

Fax (212) 751-4864

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

Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator