Protest Decisions

              February 28, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Larry Antoskiewicz

February 28, 1996

Page 1

Larry Antoskiewicz

14806 Krems Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44137

James Brown

c/o Members First Slate

P.O. Box 81460

Cleveland, OH 44181

Michael Haligowski

c/o Members First Slate

P.O. Box 81460

Cleveland, OH 44181

Judy Francisco

c/o Members First Slate

P.O. Box 81460

Cleveland, OH 44181

Leon Logan

c/o Members First Slate

P.O. Box 81460

Cleveland, OH 44181

Greg Kennedy

c/o Members First Slate

P.O. Box 81460

Cleveland, OH 44181

Terry Freeman, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 507

707 Brookpark Road

Cleveland, OH 44109

Larry Antoskiewicz

February 28, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-452-LU507-CLE

Gentlepersons:

A pre-election 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 Larry Antoskiewicz, a member of Local Union 507, against the Members First slate of delegates.   The slate is composed of James Brown, Judy Francisco, Michael Haligowski, Leon Logan, and

Greg Kennedy, all of whom are members of Local Union 507.   The protester alleges that several pieces of campaign literature mailed by the charged parties to the local union membership are misleading and inaccurate for the reasons detailed below.

Larry Antoskiewicz

February 28, 1996

Page 1

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Joyce Goldstein.

The mailing objected to by the protester consisted of three pieces of campaign material: (1) a sample ballot; (2) photographs of several members of the Members First slate with General President Ron Carey; the reverse side of this item features a picture of each slate member with a brief statement about the candidate underneath; and (3) an outline of the slate’s principles and goals.   According to the protester, he received this material at his home on February 10, 1996. 

I.              Sample Ballot

The protested material is a copy of the draft ballot prepared by the Election Officer, with the following alterations:

1)              The slate box for “Members First” has been checked.  The names of the candidates appear in bold print.

2)              The names of the opposing slate and its members are printed in very light and broken letters, making them almost impossible to read.

Mr. Antoskiewicz claims that the sample ballot “was intentionally designed to mislead the membership of Local 507” by making the members believe “that their campaign literature is the ballot in which members are to cast their vote.”  

In Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (February 21, 1996), the Election Officer found that a sample ballot distributed by the charged parties “is not deceptive or misleading because the alterations . . . clearly transformed the draft ballot into campaign literature.”  Stating that “[t]he goal to be protected is free speech,” the Election Officer noted that the use of sample ballots was sanctioned by the Election Officer in the last election, quoting Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991) as follows:

The Rules . . . secure for all candidates the freedom to fully exercise political rights through solicitations, support and the distribution of campaign literature.  The Election Officer has consistently applied the Rules so as to safeguard the exercise of these political rights.  The Rules neither prohibit nor regulate the content of campaign literature. 

See also Hughes, P-499-LU710-CHI (February 21, 1991); Hammontree, P-530-LU667-SOU (February 25, 1991).

In the instant case, the Election Officer finds that the sample ballot in question is clearly campaign literature, a fact acknowledged by the protester.

Larry Antoskiewicz

February 28, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Antoskiewicz contends that the charged parties “timed the mailing of their misleading ballot to coincide with the date on which Local 507 members could expect to receive the actual ballot in the mail.”  The ballots for the local union delegate election were mailed on February 9, 1996 and will be counted on March 1, 1996. 

Article VIII, Section 7(a)(1) of the Rules states that candidates are “entitled to a reasonable number of mailings” of campaign material.   Neither this or any other section of the Rules restricts candidates from mailing campaign literature at any point in the election process.  Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that the charged parties did not violate the Rules by mailing the protested material on or about February 9, 1996.

II.              Return Envelope

The protester also asserts that using “Teamsters Local 507” as part of the return address on the envelope misleads the voters into believing the local union was responsible for the mailing.

The return address on the mailing envelope appeared as follows:

THE “MEMBERS FIRST” TEAM

Teamsters Local 507

P.O. Box 81460

Cleveland, Ohio

XXX-XX-XXXX

Underneath the return address, the words “Campaign Material” are written in bold, capital letters.  The return address is not that of the local union.  The use of the “Local

Union 507” in the return address on what obviously is campaign material from the Members First slate does not state a violation of the Rules. 

III.              Endorsement by the IBT

A second piece of literature included in the mailing contained a picture of several of the charged parties with General President Carey.  The IBT logo is featured on the reverse side next to the name of the slate.  The protester asserts that this literature misleads the membership by indicating that the charged parties are endorsed by Mr. Carey and the IBT.[1] 

As stated above, the Election Officer has held that “[t]he Rules neither prohibit nor regulate the content of campaign literature.”  Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (February 21, 1996).  See Newhouse, supra; Landwehr, P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995).  Thus, there is no question that the charged parties were entitled to include pictures of themselves with Mr. Carey in their campaign material.

Larry Antoskiewicz

February 28, 1996

Page 1

In regard to the use of the IBT emblem or logo, the Election Officer has previously held that the use of the union logo on materials that are obviously campaign materials is permissible. Article XII, Section 1(b)(3).   Garcia, P-436-LU435-RMT (February 22, 1996); Hoffa, P-214-IBT-SCE (November 28, 1995); Majka, P-226-LU182-PGH, aff'd, 91 - Elec. App. - 40

(January 18, 1991).

For the reasons set forth above, the instant 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

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

Joyce Goldstein, Regional Coordinator