March 1, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Ronald Yeity
March 1, 1996
Page 1
Ronald M. Yeity
1425 Museum Road
Reading, PA 19610
Ron Kistler, President
Teamsters Local Union 429
1055 Spring Street
Wyomissing, PA 19610
Don Riccio, Vice President
Teamsters Local Union 429
1055 Spring Street
Wyomissing, PA 19610
Ronald Yeity
March 1, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-520-LU429-PNJ
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Ronald M. Yeity, a member of Local Union 429 and a candidate for delegate on the “Yeity - Ray Slate.”
Mr. Yeity alleges that the local union’s current president, Ron Kistler, a candidate for delegate on the “Kistler - Sentz Slate,” engaged in improper campaigning under the Rules when he posted a notice at locations within Local Union 429 regarding changes in the medical plan offered by the Central PA Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund (“Fund”), of which Mr. Kistler also serves as chairman and trustee.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr.
It is not disputed that a notice outlining improvements in medical benefits under the Fund’s Health and Welfare Plan was posted at locations within Local Union 429. The notice was in the form of a memorandum from the plan’s administrator, Phillip Carter, to
Mr. Kistler. As noted above, Mr. Kistler is both president of Local 429 and chairman of the Fund.
Ronald Yeity
March 1, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Yeity’s protest alleges that the notice was not posted in any of the other local unions covered by the Fund and that the notice itself was in an unusually large format
(1711-inch). Thus, Mr. Yeity states, “we consider it political and only being posted to get votes in the Delegate election.”
“Where allegations arise of campaigning by an incumbent officer who is also a candidate, the Election Officer must distinguish between campaigning and legitimate activity that constitutes performing the functions and duties of the incumbent’s office.” Hoffa, P‑315‑IBT‑SCE (February 27, 1996). See Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ, et al. (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995), quoting Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C.) (“Duly elected union officials have a right and a responsibility to exercise the powers of their office and to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern”), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
When a communication is financed, directly or indirectly, by a Union, this inquiry is focused by Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules.[1] In determining whether such a communication constitutes campaigning or legitimate activity, the Election Officer looks to its tone, content and timing. Martin.
Upon review of the disputed notice, the Election Officer finds that it does not violate the Rules. The notice lists improvements in benefits under the Health and Welfare Plan and groups them by effective date. The tone and content of the notice are factual, and its large format seems designed to catch the attention of members on this subject. The only links to Mr. Kistler are the listing of his name among Fund officers and the fact that the notice is addressed to him. Neither of these links is exceptional given his position as chairman of the Fund. The notice does not tout Mr. Kistler or advertise his role in bringing about the improvements listed; the notice is silent as to Mr. Kistler’s role.
During his investigation, Mr. Marks contacted Mr. Kistler and the plan administrator, Mr. Carter, with respect to Mr. Yeity’s allegation that the notice had not been posted anywhere but within Local Union 429, where Mr. Kistler is running for delegate. Mr. Kistler states that he found during shop visitations that members were unaware of plan benefit improvements and were paying monies out of their own pockets unnecessarily. He states that he then spoke with the plan administrator, and they agreed to prepare and post the disputed notice. Mr. Carter confirms this sequence of events. Mr. Carter also states that the notice will be distributed to other local unions at the next meeting of the Fund, and that they will be free to post it if they wish.
Ronald Yeity
March 1, 1996
Page 1
Upon consideration of this record, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Kistler was performing a legitimate activity as chairman of the Fund and president of Local Union 429 when he determined that members needed more information on improvements in their Health and Welfare Plan and he took steps to supply it. The communication was not a union-financed publication which violates the Rules.
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
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
Peter V. Marks, Sr., Regional Coordinator
[1]“No publication or communication financed, directly or indirectly, by a Union may be used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person . . .”