This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

              September 20, 1996

 

 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

 

Bob Blanchet

3853 Dryden Road

Fremont, CA 94555

 

Chuck Mack, President

Teamsters Joint Council 7

150 Executive Bard Boulevard

Suite 2900

San Francisco, CA 94134

 

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-924-JC7-CSF

 

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 Bob Blanchet, a member of Local Union 287.  Mr. Blanchet alleges that Joint Council 7s publication Northern California Teamster (Teamster) was used to attack the candidacy of Ron Carey, incumbent general president and candidate for reelection, in violation of the Rules.

 

Specifically, Mr. Blanchet contends that the lead article in the August 1996 issue of Teamster entitled Division of the house is highly prejudicial to General President

Ron Careys candidacy and a shameful attempt to mislead our members who could not attend the convention . . .  He contends that the author of the article presented a one-sided account of Convention proceedings that omitted crucial facts and details.

 

Regional Coordinator Matthew Ross investigated the protest.

 


Bob Blanchet

September 20, 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.  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), affd, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC)

(October 2, 1995).  The Election Officer also considers the context in which the communication appeared.

 

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 (quoting Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), affd, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).  The Election Officer also recognized in Martin that:

 

. . . an otherwise acceptable communication may be considered campaigning if it goes on to make a connection with the election or election process, if it involves excessive direct or indirect personal attacks on candidates, or, alternatively, involves lavish    praise of candidates.  Otherwise legitimate coverage of the activities of a union official running for office may constitute campaigning if it is excessive.

 

Because of the close proximity of the International officer election, the standard of scrutiny has greatly increased. 

 

The protested article begins on the first page of the Volume 41, Number 4 issue of Teamster.  It begins with an invocation of the battle of Gettysburg, contrasting the decisive

Union victory, fought in Pennsylvania in July, 133 years ago, with the outcome of the Convention.  The first few paragraphs describe an overview of Convention events, including the disruptions, ejection of guests, nomination of candidates, the passage of some resolutions, and the outcome of disciplinary appeals.  At the end of this introduction, the author states:

 

But the broad agendas for change that each side brought to Philadelphia went, for the most part, unacted upon.  Carey supporters blamed the lack of progress on unruly Hoffa delegates.  Hoffa delegates charged that Carey deliberately stalled action because he lacked a majority and was afraid he would lose any vote.

 

(Convention votes revealed that Hoffa controlled the majority of delegates.  His position prevailed in every point of contention when delegates were counted individually.)

 

The author then proceeds to divide the article into reports of daily activities starting with Monday, July 15.  In these daily reports, the article describes events that occurred on the Convention floor and in the nomination process.

 


Bob Blanchet

September 20, 1996

Page 1

 

 

Mr. Blanchet contends that this campaign coverage violates the Rules because it constitutes a highly selective and biased account of the Convention proceedings in order to prejudice readers against Mr. Carey.  An examination of the articles tone and content, however, does not reveal language critical of Mr. Carey.  The author of the article does not editorialize, nor does he link criticisms of Mr. Carey to the International officer election.

 

The International Convention is an event of significant interest to many IBT members.  Informing members of the events of the Convention through union publications is a legitimate duty of local unions, joint councils, or conference officers.  Mr. Carey, as general president of the union, served as the chair of the Convention.  This role focused a great deal of attention and interest on his actions.  Generally, detailed coverage of Mr. Carey as Convention chair would not automatically violate the Rules.

 

The Election Officer acknowledges that many aspects of the Convention were politically charged.  Many attendees openly displayed their political affiliation.  Energetic demonstrations of support for candidates were common, as were heated political debates.  A portion of the proceedings was devoted solely to the nominations of International officer candidates. 

 

Union-financed publications are prohibited from reporting on campaign activities, unless they provide equal coverage for all candidates for a particular office.  Campaign activities, however, were inextricably linked with other proceedings at the Convention. Coverage of Convention proceedings and activities by union-financed publications violates the Rules only if such coverage unduly praises or criticizes candidates or reports on the activities conducted during the convention solely for campaign purposes (e.g., a candidate rally) without providing equal coverage to other candidates for that office.  See Smith, P-836-

LU639-MID (August 16, 1991); Moerler, P-829-LU63-CLA (August 14, 1991); Scott,

P-821-LU237-NYC, P-835-LU237-NYC (August 16, 1991).

 

In addition, a union-financed publication is not obligated to report on the actions of all candidates in whatever official capacity they had at the Convention, nor is a publication required to present all points of view concerning the conduct or outcome of the Convention.  Similarly, a union-financed publication is not required to report on everything that occurred on the Convention floor.  Such requirements would effectively prohibit Convention coverage by union-financed publications by obligating journalists for such publications to report on every event, act, or proceeding that occurred at the Convention.  See Smith, supra; Moerler, supra.

 

The protested article did not attack Mr. Carey as a candidate nor was the content of the article excessively critical of Mr. Carey so as to render coverage in this context campaigning.  Mr. Blanchet objects, however, to the omission of details that would allow readers to interpret the Convention events from a different point of view.  Joint Council 7, however, is not obligated to publish Mr. Blanchets point of view.  As the article does not supports or attack any individuals candidacy and does not link criticism in the article to the International election, the article does not violate the Rules.


Bob Blanchet

September 20, 1996

Page 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, 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

Matthew Ross, Regional Coordinator