July 17, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Danny Mousette, et al.
July 17, 1996
Page 1
Robert B. Barnes
39410 Winchester Road
Wadsworth, IL 60083
Sara B. Haffner
1113 S. Carey Drive
McHenry, IL 60050
Faith Newyear
4394 Brookhaven
Gurnee, IL 60031
Bonnie Cox
39934 Fairway Drive
Antioch, IL 60002
Carol A. Bigham
26612 W. Grass Lake Road
Antioch, IL 60002
James R. Barnes, Sr.
1817 Maplewood Drive
Lindenhurst, IL 60046
Danny C. Mousette
Teamsters Joint Council 25
1645 W. Jackson, 6th Floor
Chicago, IL 60612
Lynne P. Lukasunis
10092 Chaplin Avenue
Beach Park, IL 60099
Danny Mousette, et al.
July 17, 1996
Page 1
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Danny Mousette, et al.
July 17, 1996
Page 1
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Pennsylvania Convention Center
Room 110
Philadelphia, PA
John Sullivan, Associate General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Pennsylvania Convention Center
Room 110
Philadelphia, PA
Danny Mousette, et al.
July 17, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-836-IBT-MGN
Gentlemen:
Danny Mousette, et al.
July 17, 1996
Page 1
Related pre-election protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against the IBT and General President Ron Carey. Protests were filed by Robert B. Barnes, Sara B. Haffner, Faith Newyear, Bonnie Cox, Carol A. Bigham, Lynne P. Lukasunis and James R. Barnes, Sr., all members of Local Union 301. Danny C. Mousette, a member of Local
Union 714, also filed a protest.
Mr. Barnes and Ms. Newyear generally allege that the July/August issue of Teamster magazine is “90%. . . campaign material,” thereby implicating the improper use of union funds and resources to campaign, in violation of the Rules at Article VIII, Section 8(a). They are joined in this contention by Ms. Haffner, Ms. Newyear, Ms. Cox, Ms. Bingham and
Mr. Barnes, Sr. Mr. Mousette objects to the “printing, writing and distributing” of the July/August issue of Teamster on the specific grounds that it violates Article XII,
Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules. The protests were consolidated for resolution since all pertain to the same publication.
The protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
The complete text of the July/August issue of Teamster was recently examined in Volpe, et al., P-828-IBT-MGN et seq. (July 11, 1996) (appeal pending). In that case, an analysis of Teamster was made with respect to its status as a union-financed publication and the Rules at Article VIII, Section 8(a).
The decision noted that “virtually all of the topics discussed in the various articles and features of the [Teamster] have been determined to be of legitimate interest to the union members.” No connection between the election and the subjects contained in the publication was found to exist. The writing style of the articles appearing in Teamster was determined to be neutral and non-partisan. No candidate was praised or attacked in the publication. The July/August issue of Teamster was determined to be “a valid exercise of the ‘right and responsibility’ of union officers to ‘advise and report to the membership’” and, therefore, complied, in its entirety, with the Rules at Article VIII, Section 8(a).
Mr. Barnes has presented no position or submitted any evidence to justify a reconsideration of the decision issued in Volpe and his protest is, consequently, without merit.
The challenge of Mr. Mousette, based on Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules, is similarly not sustainable. Union-financed publications are properly and exclusively tested under the tone, content, timing and context test suggested by Article VIII, Section 8(a). Martin, et al., P-010-IBT-PNJ et seq. (decision on remand) (August 17, 1995), aff’d,
95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). The distinction between potential Article VIII-type union-financed campaigning and the campaign contribution analysis available under Article XII, Section 1(b) was reviewed in Giacumbo, et al., P-011-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (September 29, 1995), aff’d in relevant part, 95 - Elec. App. - 32 (KC) (November 1, 1995). Campaigning requires some advocacy for or against a candidate. A campaign contribution, however, requires only a “foreseeable effect” to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. Caffrey, P-047-JC16-NYC (October 19, 1995). Gilmartin, et al.,
Danny Mousette, et al.
July 17, 1996
Page 1
P-032-LU245-PNJ et seq. (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 75 (KC) (February 6, 1996) sets forth the reasons why this distinction must be maintained:
The use of the wrong test could result in an undesirable restriction on free speech activity within the union . . . Using a campaign contribution analysis for union publications would not just prevent campaigning by the union and its subordinate bodies, but would also restrict debate on union policies and activities - just the opposite of what was intended by the LMRDA and the Consent Decree.
The July/August issue of Teamster is not in violation of the Rules at Article XII, Section 1(b)(1).
Accordingly, the protests are 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, Pennsylvania Convention Center, Room 204, Facsimile (202) 418-2426. 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