September 25, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
John Strysniewicz
September 25, 1996
Page 1
John T. Strysniewicz
2165 E. Rochelle Avenue #56
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Steve H. Burrus, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 995
300 Shadow Lane
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Mike Magnani, President
Teamsters Local Union 995
300 Shadow Lane
Las Vegas, NV 89106
John Strysniewicz
September 25, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-931-LU995-CLA
Gentlemen:
John Strysniewicz, a member of Local Union 995, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that Local Union 995 violated the Rules when it published and distributed a newsletter dated August 28, 1996 to all Local Union 995 shop stewards and alternate shop stewards. Mr. Strysniewicz contends that the newsletter attacked the candidacy of Ron Carey, incumbent general president, and supported the candidacy of James P. Hoffa, Jr., candidate for general president. Mr. Strysniewicz alleges that supporters of the candidacy of Mr. Carey were not given the opportunity to express an opposing viewpoint in the newsletter.
Local Union 995 responds that it has the right to comment on Mr. Carey’s actions at the Convention and to report to its membership on the conduct of the Convention, that the newsletter does not constitute campaigning within the meaning of the Rules’ “tone, content and timing” standard, and that the newsletter was distributed only to shop stewards and alternate shop stewards, not to the general membership. Regarding the delegates’ Convention reports that are published in the newsletter, Local Union 995 Secretary-Treasurer Steve Burrus states that he asked each of Local Union 995’s four delegates and three alternates to submit
John Strysniewicz
September 25, 1996
Page 1
written comments. Three members of the delegation submitted timely reports, which
Mr. Burrus printed without editing.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Dolly M. Gee.
The protested publication, Local Union 995 Union Update (the “Update”), is a five-page newsletter and was sent by Mr. Burrus and Local Union 995 President Mike Magnani to all Local Union 995 shop stewards and alternate shop stewards on August 28, 1996. The newsletter is a union-financed publication.
The article entitled, “IBT Convention,” which is the subject of Mr. Strysniewicz’s protest, begins on the bottom of page two and continues through the end of page five. The article begins with a general statement of frustration that several items of importance to Local Union 995 were not brought to a vote, including the issues of “increasing strike benefits” and “returning financial stability to the International Union,” despite repeated efforts by rank and file elected delegates. The article attributes the failure of the Convention to reach these issues to actions taken by Mr. Carey as Convention chair.
The Convention report continues on pages three and four with individual Convention reports submitted by two Local Union 995 alternate delegates and one Local Union 995 delegate, all of which are critical of Mr. Carey. The first is one paragraph submitted by alternate delegate Barbara Beardsley. The second is one paragraph submitted by delegate Elmer Hoskin. The third is a four-paragraph report submitted by alternate delegate
Judy Herman. In the second paragraph of her report, Ms. Herman states that she expected to see important issues discussed and settled in a democratic way, but instead witnessed an “individual whose portrayal was that of a dictator.” In the third paragraph, Ms. Herman comments, “Ron Carey, in all his past leadership roles failed to get my vote,” and criticizes the manner in which Mr. Carey conducted the Convention. Ms. Herman states that getting Mr. Hoffa on the ballot was a major advantage accomplished for the Teamsters. In the fourth paragraph of her report Ms. Herman, states that she is of the opinion that “Jimmy Hoffa will lead this Union into the 21st Century.” She also states, “Your concern should be in getting the most effective leader in office . . . and I believe JIMMY HOFFA, JR. was able to show me leadership that I can believe in and would be willing to follow.”
The remaining one and one-half pages of the Update contain more criticism of
Mr. Carey’s conduct as Convention chair. It mentions the strike fund and International Teamster finances, repeats the assertion that discussion of these issues was forestalled by actions of the chair, and engages in a brief discussion of IBT finances, their implications for the Carey administration, and their effects on Local Union 995. The Update concludes with a statement of general frustration that little business was conducted at the Convention.
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-
John Strysniewicz
September 25, 1996
Page 1
IBT-PNJ et al. (August 17, 1995) (decision on remand), aff’d, 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), aff’d, 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.
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. The Election Officer recognizes 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. Thus, 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 Chalfant, P-882-JC28-PNW et seq. (September 6, 1996).
In several recent decisions, the Election Officer addressed union-financed publications that contained strongly worded reporting about the Convention. Some reporting has been critical of Mr. Carey as Convention chair. See, e.g., Chalfant (August 1996 issue of Joint Council 28’s Washington Teamster, which included an article “written from the point of view that the failure of the Convention to address important issues was solely the fault of actions taken by the Convention chair”); Rodriguez, P-888-LU630-CLA (September 6, 1996) (Convention report by Local Union 630 delegates which attributed failure of Convention to reach certain issues on undemocratic action and abuse of parliamentary procedure by
Mr. Carey). Other reporting has been critical of delegates aligned with Mr. Hoffa as having disrupted the Convention. See, e.g., Hoffa, P-870-PACONF-SCE (September 6, 1996)
John Strysniewicz
September 25, 1996
Page 1
(July 1996 issue of Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters’ Conference Report which commented negatively on disruptive floor behavior); Hoffa, P-871-IBT-EOH (September 13, 1996) (July 25, 1996 edition of IBT’s The Teamster Leader criticizing “a deliberate campaign . . . [to] disrupt the proceedings” through “fights, physical threats, shouting, booing, guest voting on voice votes, and other tactics”). In each of those matters, the Election Officer found that the publication was not required to present all views and that the reporting in each case was within the scope of Convention reporting allowed by the Rules.
Mr. Strysniewicz contends that Local Union 995 violated the Rules by publishing the newsletter because its Convention coverage was uniformly critical of Mr. Carey. The Election Officer finds, however, that the critical tone and content of the newsletter as they relate to the Convention and the manner in which it was conducted by Mr. Carey, with one exception set forth below, do not distinguish it from the publications found not to violate the Rules in the decisions cited above. Union officers, who control the content of union-financed communications, may criticize or support the policies or actions of the current IBT administration in those communications without violating the Rules, so long as their comments do not support or attack the candidacy of any slate or individual. See Fischer et al., P-090-IBT-PNJ/PGH et seq. (September 7, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 15 (KC) (September 7, 1995). The Election Officer finds that the protested newsletter’s tone and content, while critical of Mr. Carey, fall within the scope of permissible Convention reporting and do not violate the Rules.
Mr. Strysniewicz contends that Local Union 995 also violated the Rules by not providing Mr. Carey’s supporters the opportunity to express their views in the newsletter. A union-financed publication, however, is not obligated to present all points of view concerning the conduct or outcome of the Convention, or 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. Such a requirement would not only create a near impossible task for such reporters, but would also intrude on their journalistic discretion. Moreover, the Election Officer has previously determined that “a union-financed communication does not violate the Rules because it fails to treat opposing ideas or opinions.” Volpe et al., P-828-IBT-MGN et seq. (July 11, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 218 (July 23, 1996). Thus, the Election Officer finds that Local Union 995 was not required by the Rules to present contrary views.
John Strysniewicz
September 25, 1996
Page 1
The fourth paragraph of Ms. Herman’s report, however, constitutes an endorsement of the candidacy of Mr. Hoffa, which, under the Rules, cannot be printed in a local union newsletter. The basic requirement of Article VIII, Section 8(a) is that no union-financed publication or communication may be used to support or attack any candidate. Article VII, Section 8(a)(1) further provides that a union-financed publication or communication shall not contain articles stating or indicating support of a particular candidate. While Ms. Herman has a protected right under the Rules to make personal endorsements,[1] the Election Officer finds that Local Union 995 violated the provisions of Article VIII, Section 8 of the Rules by printing Ms. Herman’s endorsement in the newsletter.
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is GRANTED as to the publication of the political endorsement contained in paragraph four of the Herman report and DENIED in all other respects.
When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
To remedy the improper publication of a candidate endorsement by Local Union 995, Election Officer orders the following:
1. Local Union 995 shall cease and desist from publishing an endorsement of any International officer candidate.
2. With three (3) days of the date of this decision, Local Union 995 shall post the attached “Notice to All Local Union 995 Members” on all bulletin boards at the local union for thirty (30) days.
3. Local Union 995 shall print the attached Notice in the early October edition of the Local Union 995 Union Update on page one, surrounded by a border, without any other textual or graphical reference to it.
4. Within five (5) days of the date of publication of the Notice, Local Union 995 shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer demonstrating compliance with this order.
An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).
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:
John Strysniewicz
September 25, 1996
Page 1
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
Peter V. Marks, Sr., Regional Coordinator
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION 995
In a recent issue of the Local Union 995 Union Update, an article entitled, “IBT Convention” contained an endorsement of the candidacy of an individual in the International officer election. The publication of such an endorsement violated the Election Rules.
Local Union 995 does not endorse any candidate in the International officer election.
____________________ _____________________________
Date Steve H. Burrus, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 995
Approved by Barbara Zack Quindel, IBT Election Officer.
[1]“All Union members retain the right to . . . support or oppose any candidate . . .”
Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules.