October 29, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Miguel Acosta
October 29, 1996
Page 1
Miguel Acosta
P.O. Box 391501
Mountain View, CA 94039
Ray Corrie, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 287
1452 N. 4th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Lou Bittencourt
Teamsters Local Union 287
1452 N. 4th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Miguel Acosta
October 29, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-961-LU287-CSF
DECISION ON REMAND
Gentlemen:
Miguel Acosta, a member of Local Union 287, filed a pre-election 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 on September 10, 1996, Ray Corrie, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 287, and Lou Bittencourt, a business agent for Local Union 287, showed a videotape of the IBT Convention that supported Ron Carey, IBT general president and a candidate for reelection, in violation of the Rules. In addition, Mr. Acosta alleges that pro-Carey campaign stickers have appeared on the union building.
Mr. Corrie responds that a “home-made” video taken by a Local Union 287 member was shown after the meeting had formally ended. Mr. Corrie also states that as soon as he sees or finds out about the presence of Carey stickers in the building he has them removed.
Miguel Acosta
October 29, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer issued a decision in this case on October 2, 1996. The decision was appealed by Mr. Corrie and the appeal hearing was scheduled for October 11, 1996. On October 10, 1996, the Election Officer received a letter from Mr. Corrie explaining the reason for his appeal, which was new information regarding the length of the portion of the videotape shown at the meeting. Therefore, on October 11, 1996, the Election Officer withdrew the decision to consider the new evidence.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Matthew D. Ross.
The Election Officer’s investigation revealed that on September 9, 1996, before the regular union meeting began, Jack Hampil, Local Union 287 recording secretary, requested permission to show a video of the IBT Convention. Mr. Corrie states that he agreed to show the video after the meeting. When the formal meeting concluded, but before members began leaving, Mr. Corrie told people that someone wanted to show a video. Mr. Acosta objected to the showing of the video, saying that “people didn’t come to this meeting to be shown campaign tapes.” Mr. Corrie responded that he thought that the tape was from the IBT. Duane Meyers, president of Local Union 287, corrected him, stating that it was a tape from the Carey campaign. A discussion ensued during which Mr. Corrie states that he said that the local union should not show the videotape and that he advised Mr. Hampil of this.
Mr. Bittencourt, who was present at the meeting, then offered to show the tape that he had made at the IBT Convention. Mr. Bittencourt attended the Convention as a guest and paid his own expenses.
Mr. Acosta told the Election Officer’s investigator that he objected to the showing of any videotapes at the meeting. He confirmed that the tape shown at the meeting was
Mr. Bittencourt’s tape. Mr. Acosta could not find any witnesses who stated that they saw the tape in its entirety. The investigation revealed that Mr. Bittencourt’s one-hour tape was not shown in its entirety, but was switched off after about 40 minutes because of lack of interest on the part of the members.
Mr. Acosta told the Election Officer’s representative that he believes there is campaigning in the first five minutes of the tape. He states that Dwayne Meyers, president of Local Union 287, made pro-Carey statements in that portion of the tape and that he was wearing a Carey campaign sticker on his t-shirt. Mr. Acosta alleges that by showing
Mr. Meyers wearing the Carey sticker, the local union improperly campaigned.
Mr. Acosta also alleged that there were Carey stickers on the windows at the local union hall. He complained of this to Mr. Corrie at the meeting. Mr. Corrie stated that he either personally removes or has someone remove any stickers he sees in the local union hall. Mr. Acosta corroborated Mr. Corrie’s statement that the stickers had been removed. He added that he had seen more stickers after the IBT Convention. He was not sure if they had been taken down.
1. Allegation of Campaigning at Local Union Meeting
Miguel Acosta
October 29, 1996
Page 1
It is undisputed that Local Union 287 permitted Mr. Bittencourt to show his homemade video of the Convention after the September 9, 1996 general meeting. The Election Officer’s representatives viewed the videotape. The first five minutes of the tape show short interviews of people at the Convention welcoming viewers to the Convention, including some local union officials, a security guard and Mr. Meyers. Mr. Meyers is shown twice. The first time he is shown shaking hands with another union official and introducing himself. In the next shot, he is shown at the registration window where he jokes with Mr. Bittencourt and states, “Hey Louie, I told you once, I told you twice, no makeup!” Other shots in the first five minutes show the entrance to the Convention hall, the registration of delegates and a shot of a big blue truck with the Teamsters’ emblem on the side.
The rest of the tape covers events inside the Convention hall. The videotape showed views of the hall with people milling about, school children saying the pledge of allegiance and the singing of the American and Canadian national anthems. The videotape covered many of the issues that were contested during the Convention, including disagreements between Hoffa and Carey supporters during the proceedings, scenes in which Mr. Carey was both booed and cheered, and Mr. Carey’s ejection of guests from the back of the Convention hall. In addition, the videotape showed the main speakers, including the acceptance speeches of Messrs. Hoffa and Carey in their entirety. The videotape is about one hour long.
In the last minute-and-a-half of the videotape, there is an interview of a first-time alternate delegate discussing his experience at the Convention, where he states, among other general statements about his experience at the Convention, “. . . I enjoyed it and I hope I can do it again in five years, hopefully we can get Ron Carey re-elected and we’ll be doing this again in five years.” Further investigation into this matter revealed that the final portion of the videotape was not shown to the IBT members. The videotape was shut off after approximately 40 minutes because many members had left the auditorium and there was a lack of interest in viewing the tape in its entirety.
The Rules are designed to prevent campaigning at union membership meetings.
Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the Rules reads, in relevant part, as follows:
(3) The Local Union need not allot time for campaigning during any of its meetings. However, if campaigning during such meetings is permitted, the Local Union shall notify all candidates for the positions for which such campaigning will be permitted of the opportunity to speak at least five (5) days prior to the meeting and shall divide the time equally between those candidates (or candidates’ credentialed representatives) who request an opportunity to speak. The order of appearance shall be determined by lot.
Miguel Acosta
October 29, 1996
Page 1
(4) A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor of or against any candidate in conjunction with its meetings or otherwise. This requirement shall apply not only to formal presentations by or on behalf of candidates but also to informal campaign activities, such as, for example, comments on candidates during meetings, literature distribution at meetings, literature distribution tables, etc.
By its terms, Article VIII, Section 5(a)(3) of the Rules applies while a local union meeting is taking place. In this matter, however, Mr. Bittencourt’s videotape was shown after the general meeting had been adjourned, after there had been an extensive discussion as to whether the Carey campaign tape could be shown and after Mr. Bittencourt’s offer to show his tape. By that time, many members had gotten up to get food and were milling about. Therefore, the Election Officer finds that the meeting was over, for purposes of the Rules.[1]
Events taking place in the meeting hall following a meeting fall under the provisions of Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4) of the Rules, which apply to “meetings or otherwise.” Thus, the question under the Rules is whether Local Union 287 “discriminate[d] or permit[ted] discrimination in favor of or against any candidate” when it permitted Mr. Bittencourt to show his Convention videotape.
Based on the review of the videotape, the Election Officer does not find that it constituted campaigning, since the last few minutes are not issue. The Election Officer has recently examined a number of Convention reports published by local unions, joint councils and the International for campaign content under the section of the Rules that applies to union-financed publications. See, e.g., Chalfant, P-882-JC28-PNW et seq. (September 6, 1996); Rodriguez, P-888-LU630-CLA (September 6, 1996); Hoffa, P-871-IBT-EOH (September 13, 1996); Halberg, P-900-LU174-PNW (September 18, 1996).
In those decisions, the Election Officer recognized 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.
Upon review of Mr. Bittencourt’s videotape, the Election Officer finds that it falls well within the scope of Convention reporting that has not been found to be campaigning in the matters cited above.
Miguel Acosta
October 29, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Acosta alleges that showing Mr. Meyers wearing a Carey sticker constituted improper campaigning on the part of the local union. In her Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems (September 20, 1995), the Election Officer states that the wearing of campaign buttons is protected as long as the union representative is not representing the union before an unrelated third party. Likewise, showing Mr. Meyers wearing a campaign button in a videotape covering the IBT Convention where most people are wearing campaign buttons or other emblems does not constitute improper campaigning. In light of the scope of reporting on the Convention in Mr. Bittencourt’s videotape, as stated above, the Election Officer finds that showing Mr. Meyers wearing a Carey campaign button is not a violation of the Rules.
In the last couple of minutes of Mr. Bittencourt’s videotape, a delegate states his personal opinion that he hopes that Mr. Carey will be reelected as IBT general president. The delegate’s statement, however, was not seen by any of the members at the local union meeting because the tape was shut off with approximately 20 minutes remaining on the tape. Therefore, the Election Officer finds that no violation of the Rules occurred from the showing of the video.
2. Allegation of Campaign Materials Being Posted at the Local Union Hall
Mr. Acosta claims that there were Carey campaign stickers posted at the union hall. Mr. Corrie asserted that he removes or causes to be removed any stickers which he sees in the building. Mr. Acosta corroborated Mr. Corrie’s statement in that the stickers which he had seen had been taken down.
In Willett, P-863-LU331-PNJ (August 16, 1996), the Election Officer found that “[a]ffixing campaign stickers and literature to the newly painted exterior of [a local union’s] hall was vandalism.” The person or persons responsible for putting up the stickers in Local Union 287’s hall have not been identified and both parties admit that every effort is being made to take the stickers down as soon as they are put up. Accordingly, the local union is not in violation of the Rules. However, the local union should remain vigilant and immediately remove any such stickers that appear.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED in all respects.
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
Miguel Acosta
October 29, 1996
Page 1
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
Matthew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator
[1]In Birch, P-603-LU320-NCE (March 21, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 154 (KC) (April 1, 1996), the Election Officer addressed campaigning at local union meetings that had been pre-planned and immediately followed adjournment. The Election Officer found that those meetings were “technically” adjourned in a “hollow attempt to circumvent” the equal access provisions of Article VIII, Section 5(a)(3) of the Rules. In the current matter, the Election Officer finds no indicia of such technical adjournment.