March 1, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Bob Jordan
March 1, 1996
Page 1
Bob Jordan
6905 Archdale Street
Detroit, MI 48228
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Lawrence Brennan, President
Teamsters Local Union 337
2801 Trumbull Avenue
Detroit, MI 48216
Paul A. Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Bob Jordan
March 1, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-341-LU337-SCE
Gentlemen:
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 Bob Jordan, a Local Union 337 member. The protest is filed against James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president and an employee of an affiliated body of the IBT.
The protester contends that Mr. Hoffa’s IBT-affiliated employer improperly contributed to his campaign. Specific reference is made to the Election Officer’s letter to Mr. Hoffa dated January 19, 1996 acknowledging receipt of his protest in P-313-LU728-SEC (February 26, 1996). The protester further refers to the fact that in that letter, Mr. Hoffa asked an Election Officer Representative to “call him at the office where he is employed by Teamsters Joint Council 43 for further information and support of his protest.” The protester infers from this suggestion that “Mr. Hoffa is using both union facilities, and time paid for by the union to pursue this protest.”
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
Bob Jordan
March 1, 1996
Page 1
The protester raises an issue which has recently been resolved in Jordan, P-269-LU337-SCE (January 18, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 84 (KC) (February 12, 1996). That decision provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“[T]he Rules had been interpreted to permit a local union to expend its resources to pursue a protest filed to ensure proper implementation of the Rules, without taking a “clearly partisan position” or “incontrovertibly engag[ing] in advocacy on behalf of particular candidates paid.” [citing cases] “When this criteria is met, the union, whether the International or subordinate body, may properly use its funds to file and pursue such protests. It may do so by paying for the time spent by its officers in handling such protest, by hiring legal council or . . . by paying a consultant. [citing cases]
The Election Officer adheres to the rule that protest-related activity is proper as long as the subject of the protest furthers the independent institutional interests of the union. Jordan, supra. See also McSweeney, P-41-LU710-CHI (May 8, 1991), aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 150 (SA) (May 16, 1991).
Mr. Hoffa did request an Election Office Representative to call him at his office in the event further information was needed in support of his protest. In that submission, Mr. Hoffa alleged that Local Union 728 officers Don Scott and Doug Mims discriminated against his candidacy and made improper contributions to the candidacy of his opponent. In considering the protest, the Election Officer found that Local Union 728 made the Convoy Dispatch, the newspaper of the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”), available in their union hall and simultaneously refused to allow placement of campaign literature supporting Mr. Hoffa. It further found that the disputed issues of the Convoy Dispatch contain several articles which supported the candidacy of Ron Carey and his slate and opposed the candidacy of Mr. Hoffa and his allies. The Election Officer concluded that the act of failing to permit Mr. Hoffa’s literature on the distribution table at the union hall, while at the same time offering copies of the Convoy Dispatch, was improper under the Rules. Hoffa, et al., P-313-LU728-SEC, et seq. (February 26, 1996).
For purposes of this decision, the Election Officer assumes, without actually finding, that Mr. Hoffa pursued this protest during work time. While pursuing this protest may advance his campaign, Mr. Hoffa’s efforts in submitting this protest do not render him engaged in “clearly partisan” activity or an “incontrovertible” attempt to support his own candidacy. Rather, the protest concerned local union activity which violated the Rules with respect to the distribution of literature. The protest was filed, in part, to insure that union resources were not utilized to discriminate against the candidacy of those running the race, a purpose which the Rules seek to uphold. The Election Officer therefore finds that Mr. Hoffa’s representation, even if during union hours, does not violate the Rules.
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is DENIED.
Bob Jordan
March 1, 1996
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 N. 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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator