February 21, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Archie Cook
February 21, 1996
Page 1
Archie Cook
4508 Balmoral Drive
Richton Park, IL 60471
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
John Sullivan, Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Tom Sever, General Secretary-Treasurer
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Earl Brown, Jr.
Legal Department
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Gerald Zero, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
John McCormick, President
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Archie Cook
February 21, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-338-LU705-CHI
Gentlemen:
Archie Cook
February 21, 1996
Page 1
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Archie Cook, a member of Local Union 705. Mr. Cook contends that an announcement at the January 21, 1995 membership meeting (conducted after the nomination meeting) by Local Union Secretary-Treasurer Gerald Zero in which Mr. Zero stated that the union had just won a $13.5 million lawsuit for the local union, that the International union paid the cost of the attorneys to represent the local union, and nothing would be taken out of the settlement to pay for attorneys. Mr. Zero contends that these actions represent a political contribution by the IBT to Mr. Zero and that
Mr. Zero is using this contribution for campaign purposes, in violation of Article XII, Section 1 of the Rules.
Mr. Zero and Local Union 705 President John McCormick respond that Mr. Zero, as part of his regular report to the membership, properly reported to the membership on the settlement of a lawsuit involving the Health and Welfare Pension Funds of Local Union 705. The fact that
Mr. Cook does not agree with the report does not qualify responses to Mr. Cook at the meeting as campaigning, in violation of the Rules.
The IBT responds that the announcement of the settlement of a legitimate lawsuit as part of an official report to the membership is not a violation of the Rules and does not furnish any basis for a protest.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Julie Hamos.
The facts are not in dispute. The protester is a delegate candidate on the Hoffa/Hogan Slate. Mr. Zero is a delegate candidate on the opposing Reformer’s Pride Movement Slate. Following the nomination meeting held on January 21, 1995, the local union conducted a monthly membership meeting. As local union secretary-treasurer, Mr. Zero makes a report at each membership meeting. During his report, he addressed issues concerning the local union’s Health and Welfare Pension Funds, of which Mr. Zero and Mr. McCormick are trustees. He reported on the settlement of a lawsuit concerning the funds which was brought by the Interna-tional union. He referred to the $13.5 million settlement as beneficial to the members and noted that since the International union paid for the attorneys to represent the local union, nothing would be taken out of the settlement to pay for such expenses. Mr. Zero made no reference to the delegate election.
During an open microphone portion of the meeting, Mr. Cook both questioned and presented arguments against the lawsuit settlement.
In Martin, et al. P-010-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995), the Election Officer addressed a protested article in the April/May 1995 issue of Teamster magazine which announced the filing of the lawsuit of which Mr. Zero reported the settlement. There, the Election Officer found that the article was not in violation of Rules, and stated as follows:
Archie Cook
February 21, 1996
Page 1
An article entitled “Pension Fund Fraud Exposed” addresses allegations of misuse of four million dollars in IBT pension fund monies and announces an IBT lawsuit against the alleged parties to the fraud . . . The Election Officer views the protested articles in the April/May 1995 issue of Teamster as addressing subject matters of general concern to the membership and newsworthy, significant events. For example, allegations of pension fund misuse are certainly of general interest to the membership. Because Mr. Carey was announcing an IBT lawsuit against alleged parties to the fraud, the photograph bears a reasonable relationship to his involvement with those activities.
In reporting on the settlement of the lawsuit, Mr. Zero was reporting on the official business of the union. The charge in this protest is similar to that raised in Jordan, P-141-LU337-MGN (September 18, 1996). In that case, the protester stated that the publication of a union-financed press release by Local Union 337 announcing a lawsuit filed against Ron Carey was a violation of the Rules. The Election Officer found the press release was within the “range of permissible communications” because,
A published communication “addressed to the regular functions, policies and activities” of incumbent officers in the discharge of endeavors which constitute “matters of interest to the membership, and not as candidates for reelection,” does not violate the Rules. Dunn, P-104-IBT-SCE (August 23, 1995). See also, Donovan v. Metro. Dist. Council, 797 F.2d 140, 145 (3d Cir. 1986), citing Camarata v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C.). The matters contained therein relate to legitimate issues of union business. Basically, the press release at issue contains a report of an official action taken by Local 337 in filing a legal challenge to President Ron Carey and the International Union’s refusal to provide financial information requested by the union.
Here, the Election Officer does not find that the meritorious settlement of this lawsuit or its announcement at the membership meeting violates Article XII, Section 1 of the Rules.
Accordingly, 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.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Archie Cook
February 21, 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
Julie Hamos, Regional Coordinator