April 11, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
April 11, 1996
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
John Sullivan, Assoc. General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
James P. Hoffa
April 11, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-704-IBT-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 James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president. Mr. Hoffa charges that union resources were used by General President Ron Carey for travel and other related expenses to attend a campaign rally for Local Union 299 President Ron Owens, a candidate for International vice president on the Ron Carey Slate, was held on March 31, 1996. Mr. Hoffa alleges this is a violation of Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules, which pertains to campaign contributions.
In response, Mr. Carey states that while he attended the rally, he paid his own expenses. He states that the rally was held on Sunday, March 31, 1996, and that he departed from New York City and returned to Washington, D.C. on that day. Because Sunday is not a work day, Mr. Carey states that he was not on union time.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
Generally, all union members, including Mr. Carey, enjoy the right to campaign so long as they do not campaign on time that is paid for by the union. Article VIII, Section 11.
James P. Hoffa
April 11, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Carey has produced receipts and flight coupon ticket stubs which demonstrate that his personal credit card was used to pay for his travel expenses. The speech was on a Sunday, which is non-union time. Thus, the Rules were not violated.
As to Mr. Hoffa’s allegation that union resources were used to pay for “other related expenses,” Article XIV, Section 1 of the Rules places the burden on the protester “to present evidence that a violation has occurred.” The Election Appeals Master has stated that, “[w]here the parties differ as to material facts, the Election Officer looks to the protestor, who bears the initial burden of proof, to offer evidence substantiating his allegations.” In Re: Chentnik,
95 - Elec. App. - 52 (KC) (January 10, 1996). Because Mr. Hoffa has offered no evidence to substantiate his allegation, he has not sustained this burden.
In consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Hoffa’s 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, DC 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