May 6, 1996
VIA U.S. EXPRESS MAIL
Chastity Young
May 6, 1996
Page 1
Chastity Young
P.O. Box 106
East Lynne, MO 64743
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
Susan Davis
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Chastity Young
May 6, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-722-IBT-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Chastity Young, a member of Local Union 41, filed a preelection protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that General President Ron Carey has used the April-May 1996 issue of Teamster Magazine to promote his candidacy for reelection.
The protester objects to four articles in the April-May 1996 issue of Teamster. First, she protests an article reporting that General President Carey plans to ask the July 1996 Teamsters Convention to change the name of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to a name which will include Teamster women as well as Teamster men. The article solicits suggestions from members for a new name for the union. The protester contends that the proposal reported in the article is essentially a campaign promise by Mr. Carey as to what he will implement at the convention on behalf of women.
The second protested article announces in its headline that, “In a break with the past
Chastity Young
May 6, 1996
Page 1
. . . Employers Not Invited to 1996 Teamsters Convention.” The article advises that at previous conventions “employers attended as guests and sometimes lobbied delegates on resolutions that were being considered” and identifies employers who attended the 1991 IBT convention. The article quotes Mr. Carey, stating, “The place to talk with employers is across the negotiating table, not in the halls of our own convention.” The protester alleges that in this article, the general president improperly “condemns” previous Teamster officials.
The same article lists examples of issues that will be considered at the 1996 convention. The protester objects to the list as a mere restatement of themes of the Carey campaign. The protested list includes: “Continuing the clean-up of corruption in the union,” “Preventing officials from taking outrageous salaries and pensions,” “Building unity for stronger contracts,” and “Funding strike benefits for Teamster members.”
To demonstrate that the protested Teamster magazine conveys the same messages as Mr. Carey’s campaign literature, the protester submits a leaflet used by the Carey Reform slate, a slate of candidates for delegate from Local Union 41. The leaflet urges, “Elect Delegates Backing Carey’s Reforms.” The protester highlights the claims in the campaign leaflet that the pro-Carey slate “is fighting corruption,” “. . . eliminating outrageous multiple salaries for union officials,” “has negotiated the highest benefit contributions in history,” “has fought for a strong national strike fund . . . ,” “understands working Teamsters,” and “[i]s working to keep your Right to Vote for International officers and convention delegates.”
The protester objects to two other articles in the April-May 1996 Teamster magazine. She protests an article announcing that the general president has put Local Union 390 in temporary trusteeship based on a report by the Independent Review Board finding that the local union referred members for jobs based on improper criteria. The protester also complains about an article reporting the suspension of an International vice president for accepting gifts from an employer and from providers of services to the local union. The protested article quotes the general president’s comment, “In today’s Teamsters Union, the rules apply to everyone. No official may take something of value from an employer in violation of the law, no matter who they are.” The protester claims that in these two articles, Mr. Carey improperly claims credit for actions aimed at eliminating corruption in the union.
The IBT takes the position that the protested articles do not constitute campaign material as they are a legitimate reporting of newsworthy items of interest to the membership.
Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens investigated the protest.
Chastity Young
May 6, 1996
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication may not be “used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.” Correspondingly, Article VIII, Section 11(c) provides that no union funds or union resources may be used to assist in campaigning. In reviewing union-financed communications for improper campaign content, the Election Officer looks to the tone, content and timing of the publication. Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ, et al. (August 17, 1995) (decision on remand), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). In Martin, the Election Officer recognized that union officers and officials have a “right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office and to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern.” Id. (quoting Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
With respect to the article soliciting suggestions for a name for the union, the union’s name is designated in the IBT Constitution at Article 1, Section 1. Thus, a change in the name is a constitutional amendment that must be voted upon by the delegates at a convention pursuant to Article III, Section 9(a). That section also provides that a proposed amendment may be submitted to the Constitutional Committee by the general president in advance of the convention. Accordingly, the general president’s pre-convention solicitation in Teamster magazine of suggestions for a new name for the union is an exercise of his legitimate functions and is newsworthy.
Similarly, it is entirely appropriate for the union to announce in its magazine a change in protocol concerning the attendance of employers at the convention, and to explain the rationale for the change. The adoption of the new policy as to who may attend the International convention is an institutional prerogative of presumed interest to the membership. In acknowledging that his policy departs from past practice, the general president does not attack any candidate or in any way refer to the International officer election.
The protester objects to the remainder of this article because the issues it identifies as part of the agenda for the upcoming convention are similar to themes of the Carey campaign. Union funds and resources used to produce communications of a union officer are not impermissible merely because the same messages are utilized in the campaign, as long as the union-financed communication is neutral with regard to the election. Hoffa, P-733-IBT-SCE (May 1, 1996). As the Election Officer stated in that case,
If the protester’s view here was adopted, no union publication could comment on any issue of concern to the membership if one or more candidates for International office had taken a stand on it. As a result, union publications would be barred during election campaigns from discussing the most important issues facing the membership. Far from effectuating the goals of the Consent Decree, such a result would cripple the free expression of ideas among IBT officers and members.
As long as the union-financed publication focuses on legitimate subjects and its tone, content, and timing, in context, do not discuss the issues as reasons to support or oppose a candidate, the communication does not violate the Rules. Id. Martin. The protested article identifies proposed changes in the Teamsters Constitution and whether to fund increased strike benefits as issues to be considered at the convention. No connection is made between these issues and any candidacy.
Chastity Young
May 6, 1996
Page 1
There is no question that Mr. Carey’s campaign has emphasized his success in ridding the union of corruption by imposing temporary trusteeships and disciplining union officials where misconduct has been found, and his desire to continue these efforts. A union-financed publication may report on such measures as long as the coverage does not convey that the actions are a reason to reelect the general president. See, e.g., Tusino, P-639-IBT-SCE
(April 12, 1966), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 178 (KC) (April 24, 1996) (permitting IBT to issue press release announcing suspension of union officer); Blake, P-245-JC42-CLA (December 18, 1995) (allowing union-financed publication to report rationale for imposition of trusteeship). Here, the trusteeship imposed upon Local Union 390 and the suspension of an international vice president are properly reported with no mention of the International officer election.
The articles cited by the protester involve legitimate subjects presented without reference to the upcoming election. The articles do not impermissibly support or attack a candidate in violation of the Rules. Accordingly, this 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