September 10, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Richard Berg
September 10, 1996
Page 1
Richard Berg
1336 W. Argyle
Chicago, IL 60640
Frank Mancuso, Jr., Producer
MGM-United Artists
2500 Broadway Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
William T. Hogan, Jr.
219 Avondale
Palatine, IL 60067
Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
Richard Berg
September 10, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-884-LU714-CHI
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 Richard Berg, a member of Local Union 743. The protester alleges that Frank Mancuso, Jr., a movie producer, appeared at a rally on August 15, 1996, and endorsed William Hogan Jr.’s “qualifications.” The protester argues that Mr. Mancuso is an employer and, as such, his appearance was an endorsement of Mr. Hogan and any expenses he incurred in order to attend the rally represent prohibited contributions, under the Rules.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Representative Kathryn Naylor.
Richard Berg
September 10, 1996
Page 1
The investigation revealed that a rally was held on August 15, 1996 in Chicago to protest the imposition of a trusteeship on Local Union 714 by the International union. The rally focused on the charges of corruption and nepotism leveled against Mr. Hogan in his position as secretary-treasurer of the local union. Mr. Mancuso’s statements at the rally defended the job that Mr. Hogan has done with the Chicago movie industry. Mr. Mancuso’s remarks also addressed the allegations of nepotism against Mr. Hogan, emphasizing that the issue is not whose son you are, but rather whether you did a good job. Mr. Mancuso reportedly noted that, like Mr. Hogan, his father had introduced him into the movie industry business.
The Election Officer finds that Mr. Mancuso’s appearance at the Hogan rally was not a prohibited contribution. The rally protested here was to denounce the trusteeship and support Mr. Hogan’s record as secretary-treasurer of Local Union 714. Mr. Mancuso’s appearance and statements were in support of Mr. Hogan in his capacity as secretary-treasurer in dealing with the movie industry in Chicago, and not in support of his candidacy for International union office. Therefore, Mr. Mancuso’s appearance at the rally is not violative of the Rules.[1]
Accordingly, 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, 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
[1]Since the Election Officer does not consider Mr. Mancuso’s appearance or statements campaigning on behalf of Mr. Hogan, it is not necessary to reach the issue of whether Mr. Mancuso would be considered an employer as defined by the Rules.