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













October 24, 1995




Robert Hasegawa, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 174

553 John Street

Seattle, WA 98109


James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098


Re: Election Office Case No. P-180-LU174-PNW




This protest was filed pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Robert Hasegawa, Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 174, who alleges that a flyer sent to him for distribution on behalf of the Hoffa campaign pursuant to the Election Officer’s order in Halberg, Case No. P-089-LU174-PNW (September 7, 1995), did not comply with that order.


Mr. Hasegawa asserts that the flyer provided him by the Hoffa campaign pursuant to Halberg was a “flagrant abuse of [the Election Officer’s] decision” because the flyer “campaigns for the ‘Teamsters for Teamsters’ slate,” a slate allied with the Hoffa campaign which opposed to Mr. Hasegawa in local union officer elections and is currently opposing him in the local union delegate elections.  The protester alleges that the “literature denigrates [his] administration as well as the Carey Administration.”  He asks for the opportunity to display literature supporting the Carey campaign and his own “PROUD Teamsters Reform Slate.”


Jerry Halberg, a member of Local Union 174 and the protester in Halberg, responds that the flyer protested here complies with the Election Officer’s order.  He points out that it was the anti-Hoffa flyer in Halberg which first “injected Local 174 delegate campaign issues into the flyer” by referring to the Teamsters for Teamsters slate in connection with

Mr. Hoffa’s campaign.


Robert Hasegawa

October 24, 1995

Page 1



Regional Coordinator Christine M. Mrak investigated the protest.


In Halberg, the Election Officer found that Local Union 174 discriminated against the Hoffa campaign by distributing an anti-Hoffa flyer from its secretary-treasurer’s office without offering the Hoffa campaign a similar opportunity.  The flyer protested there referred to the “Teamsters for Teamsters slate” as follows:


The Teamsters for Teamsters are part of the “Real Teamster Caucus” with the same old lies in a new package. “DON’T BUY IT”


As a remedy, the Election Officer ordered Local Union 174 to notify Mr. Hoffa that the local union would distribute campaign literature on his behalf and “to make available for distribution on the literature distribution table in Mr. Hasegawa’s office, campaign literature similar to that made available by the Secretary-Treasurer as described in this decision.”


Pursuant to the Election Officer’s order, the Hoffa campaign provided literature to Local Union 174 for distribution.  That flyer contains a ten-point listing of reasons to “reject Ron Carey, and elect James P. Hoffa for Teamsters General President in 1996.”  It includes a single reference to the Teamsters for Teamsters at the bottom of the flyer reading:


              For a credible and effective alternative vote

              James P. Hoffa for General President and

              “Teamsters for Teamsters” in Local 174's Delegate election


Article VIII, Section 11 of the Rules gives broad protection to the freedom of union members to exercise their political rights.  In Braxton, Case No. P-304-LU623-PHL (May 21, 1991), the Election Officer stated:


Underlying the Rules is a firm policy against censorship or the regulation of the content of campaign literature.  Article VIII, Section [7] (g) of the Rules specifically states that “the Union may not censor, regulate, alter or inspect the contents of any candidate’s campaign literature.  The Union may not refuse to process or distribute any candidate’s literature on the basis of its contents.”


The protester complains that the flyer supplied by the Hoffa campaign promotes the Teamsters for Teamsters slate as well as Mr. Hoffa.  The protester additionally contends that the flyer criticizes the protester’s administration as well as that of Ron Carey. The Election Officer finds, however, that the flyer is consistent with her order and therefore the protest is DENIED.


Robert Hasegawa

October 24, 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 & 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.






Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer



cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Christine M. Mrak, Regional Coordinator