February 23, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Eugene Maney
February 23, 1996
Page 1
Eugene P. Maney
6 Arianne Way
Holtsville, NY 11742
Teamsters Local Union 707
14 Front Street
Hempstead, NY 11550
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Kevin Currie
541 South Wellwood Avenue
Lindenhurst, NY 11757
Eugene Maney
February 23, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-299-LU707-NYC
Gentlemen:
Eugene P. Maney, a member of Local Union 707, filed a protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that Local Union 707 violated the Rules by permitting supporters of James P. Hoffa to distribute campaign literature outside of local union meetings on January 6 and 7, 1995. Mr. Maney alleges that: (1) the local union discriminated against supporters of Ron Carey by failing to notify or provide a similar opportunity to campaign; (2) the local union made a financial contribution to support the campaigning by renting the meeting room; and (3) Mr. Currie, who is a shop steward and was a campaign manager for the Local Union 707 president and another officer, is so closely identified with the Local Union 707 Executive Board that his activity on behalf of Mr. Hoffa is perceived as an endorsement by the local union.
Local Union President Nicholas J. Picarello responds that the local union does not endorse any candidate and was not aware that any campaigning had taken place outside the meetings. Mr. Picarello states that he believes that members of the local union have a right to distribute literature outside a union meeting.
New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt investigated the protest.
Eugene Maney
February 23, 1996
Page 1
Local Union 707 held a contract ratification meeting on January 6, 1995, and a general membership meeting on January 7, 1995. Both meetings were held at Plattduetsche Park, a restaurant in Franklin Square, New York. Right after the January 6, 1995 meeting, a Local Union 707 member named Kevin Currie began distributing campaign literature on behalf of James P. Hoffa. Mr. Currie distributed the literature outside of the room in which the meeting was held, near the entrance to the lounge where members were going to celebrate the new contract. On January 7, 1995, Mr. Currie distributed literature outside of the meeting room just after the meeting was over. The protester acknowledges that Mr. Currie distributed campaign material while he was outside of the meeting room, although inside of the restaurant building.
Article VIII, Section 11(a) guarantees the right of all IBT members to participate in campaign activities. The section provides in pertinent part:
All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to distribute campaign literature and to otherwise solicit support for a member’s candidacy outside a meeting hall before, during and after a Union meeting, regardless of Union policy, rule or practice.
Thus, the Rules provide that each local union member has a right equal to that provided other members, to engage in campaign activities on union premises. Absent a past practice permitting such conduct inside of the union hall, or evidence that a complainant has been denied the right to engage in such conduct on a discriminatory basis, the Rules do not authorize the distribution of campaign literature inside a union hall. Teller, Case No.
P-097-LU741-PNW (January 2, 1991). Thus, if a local union permits campaigning inside its hall, then the local union must permit campaigning regardless of whose campaign benefits. See id.
Regardless of past practice, local union members have a right to engage in campaign activities outside the local union hall. Kesner, Case No. P-567-LU705-CHI (July 23, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 174 (SA) (August 9, 1991). This right exists even if the campaigning takes place on property owned by the union. Kesner, supra; Teller, supra.
Eugene Maney
February 23, 1996
Page 1
Here, the meeting hall was a room rented in a restaurant, not a hall owned or leased in whole or in part by the local union. Thus, the meeting hall in this case is the room in which the meeting was held. There is no dispute that Mr.Currie was campaigning outside of the room in which the meetings were held. In these circumstances, Mr. Currie has a protected right “to solicit support for a member’s candidacy outside a meeting hall,” pursuant to Article VIII, Section 11(a). There is no evidence of a past practice nor of discriminatory application of any policy. Thus, the local union had no duty to notify the other candidates of the opportunity to campaign and did not violate the Rules by renting a room in the building in which the campaigning occurred. Nor is Mr. Currie’s right to campaign somehow barred under the Rules because of his past activities within the union.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Sincerely yours,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Barbara Deinhardt, New York City Protest Coordinator
Arthur A. Wasserman, Regional Coordinator