Protest Decisions

January 4, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Bradley N. Yeakel

January 4, 1996

Page 1

Bradley N. Yeakel

620 N. Jefferson Street

Allentown, PA 18102

Mike Parker                           

c/o Labor Notes

7435 Michigan Avenue

Detroit, MI 48210

Patricia G. Franks, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 773

1345 Hamilton Street

Allentown, PA 18102

Paul Alan Levy

Public Citizen Litigation Group

1600 20th St. N.W.

Washington, DC XXX-XX-XXXX

Bradley N. Yeakel

January 4, 1996

Page 1

Re:              Election Office Case Nos.               P-256-LU773-PNJ

P-257-LU773-PNJ

Gentlepersons:

Two protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Bradley N. Yeakel, a member of Local Union 773, against Local Union 773 Secretary-Treasurer Patricia G. Franks.  The protester alleges first that Ms. Franks made a campaign contribution in violation of Article XII, Sections 1(b)(1) and 1(b)(3) of the Rules by displaying in her office photographs of the protester and Randy A. Miller. The protester also alleges that Ms. Franks obtained the pictures from Labor Notes,[1] an employer, in violation of Article XII, Section 1(a) and 1(b)(1).

Ms. Franks responds that the protest is untimely.  As to the merits, she denies that her display of the photograph is a campaign contribution because the display does not have the requisite purpose, object or foreseeable effect to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate for delegate or International officer.  She also claims that neither Mr.Yeakel nor Mr. Miller are “candidate[s]” within the meaning of the Rules.  Additionally, she denies that she obtained the photograph from an employer as the term is used in the Rules.

Bradley N. Yeakel

January 4, 1996

Page 1

Because both protests involve the same factual claims and legal issues, the Election Officer has consolidated the protests for decision.

The protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr.

There is no dispute that the photograph at issue was taken during a conference sponsored by Labor Notes on April 19, 1995.  The protester claims that on November 29, 1995, he became aware that copies of the photograph were displayed in Ms. Franks’ office. 

The Rules, at Article XIV, Section 2(b), state, "Except as otherwise provided . . . all preelection protests . . . must be filed within two (2) working days of the day the protester becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived."  There is no evidence that the protester knew or reasonably should have known that the photographs were displayed in Ms. Franks’s office prior to November 29, 1995.  The protests were received in the Election Office on December 1, 1995, within the applicable two-day time limit.  The protests are timely and therefore will be resolved on their merits.

The photograph at issue was taken by a person who is employed by Labor Notes. The protester does not assert that the picture appeared in or was otherwise used by Labor Notes. Ms. Franks did not obtain the picture from the photographer or from an employer.  She obtained it from a friend, another Teamster, who salvaged this and other photographs subsequently discarded by the Labor Notes photographer.

Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) prohibits employers from “contribut[ing] directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate.”  The Election Officer finds no evidence that the picture was obtained from an “employer” as that term is used in Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules.

Mr. Yeakel and Mr. Miller are declared candidates for delegate from Local Union 773.  The photograph at issue shows both men with James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president.  Each of the individuals in the photograph is wearing a Hoffa campaign button.  There is a factual dispute as to whether one or two copies of the photograph are displayed on the walls in Ms. Franks’ office in the Local Union 773 hall.

Although the protester is an opposition delegate candidate against Ms. Franks, she contends that the posting of the picture has nothing to do with the delegate election.  She asserts that the picture is posted as a reminder to her that as a local union officer she must do her job properly or she could lose her office, just as the protester did.

Bradley N. Yeakel

January 4, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer finds Ms. Franks explanation for posting the photograph is not credible. Ms. Franks made known her opposition to Mr. Hoffa, Mr.Yeakel, and Mr. Miller during a speech at the Labor Notes conference, referring to all of them as sharing the “old guard philosophy.”  The photograph displayed in her office is not just a picture of the protester but of Mr. Yeakel and Mr. Miller as Hoffa supporters in the current election.  In this context, the Election Officer finds that the photograph is being used to improperly assist Ms. Franks in campaigning against Mr. Yeakel.

The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(c) prohibit the use of union facilities to assist in campaigning.  Use of the wall in Ms. Franks’ office to post the photograph was such a prohibited use of union facilities.

The protest is GRANTED to the extent that it alleges a prohibited campaign activity, and in all other respects, is DENIED.

When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.”  Article XIV, Section 4.  In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.

The Election Officer orders Ms. Franks, upon receipt by Local 773 of this decision, to remove all copies of the protested photograph from her office, and within two days of same, to file an affidavit with the Election Officer attesting to her compliance with this order.

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

Bradley N. Yeakel

January 4, 1996

Page 1

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

Peter V. Marks, Regional Coordinator