October 11, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Dave Keaton
5640 Rhodes
St. Louis, MO 63109
John Fisher, President
Teamsters Local Union 600
9041 Riverview Drive
St. Louis, MO 63137
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1028-LU600-MOI
Gentlemen:
Dave Keaton, a member of Local Union 600, 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”) against the Local Union 600. The preparation, printing and distribution of a union-financed publication, the September 1996 issue of the Teamsters Local 600 Bulletin Board (“Bulletin”), is challenged by this protest. Mr. Keaton contends that the Bulletin contains improper campaigning. The charge is denied by Martin Giorgi, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 600.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Michael D. Gordon.
The material facts are not disputed. Mr. Giorgi took office in January 1996. Since that time, Local Union 600 has distributed informal documents containing items of general member interest at regular steward’s meetings and general membership meetings. Until September 1996, these documents were produced on an as needed basis. The newsletter which is the subject of this protest is the Bulletin’s first edition and Local Union 600’s first attempt to formalize the dissemination of membership information. The Bulletin begins with the statement, “This issue’s focus is on Voter Registration, Organizing, and Views from your Elected Delegates and Alternate Delegate of the Teamsters International Convention.”
Dave Keaton
October 11, 1996
Page 1
After extending an invitation to inspect the “new appearance” of the union hall, the first article appeared under Mr. Giorgi’s byline. In this article, Mr. Giorgi informed the membership that his administration has cut costs and that the union is free of certain debts. He encouraged the members to vote in the International election and reminded his readers that, as the International election approaches, it is important for each member to ensure that Local Union 600 has their current address.
John Fisher, president of Local Union 600, wrote the next article. He expressed the hope that more members will attend general membership meetings and referred to the IBT’s position on the Working Family Flexibility Act now pending before Congress. Mr. Fisher commended the business agents, officers and trustees for their work and encouraged every member to vote in the International officer election. Mr. Fisher also refers to the Convention. He states that “there were pros and cons as to what took place. If you want the real truth, just pick up a phone and call any one of your delegates at the union hall.”
This article is followed by another article written by Mr. Giorgi reporting on some of Local Union 600’s activities in local politics and encouraging member participation. The newsletter closed with two articles which concerned the status of several organizing drives. None of these articles are alleged to contain campaign material.
The focus of the protest is on a group of reports which concern the International Convention. The newsletter reproduced several separately written features from elected Convention delegates and the alternate delegate. All of these presentations were preceded by the headline, “‘Personal Views’ from Your Elected Delegates and Alternate Delegate of the International Convention.” With one exception, the delegate statements are critical of General President Ron Carey.
Delegate Dan McKay, for example, wrote that he was “appalled and ashamed” of the way the delegates were treated at the Convention. According to Mr. McKay, Mr. Carey deliberately attempted to “slow the convention to avoid the important issues.” Delegate
Ray West rebuked Mr. Carey for failing to address the “strike fund issue” even after the Detroit Free Press strikers were brought up to the podium. In the opinion of Delegate
Larry Tinker and Alternate Delegate Russ Halbert, Mr. Carey improperly implemented “filibustering techniques” during the Convention when “he was unable to force his union weakening agenda on this delegation.” Additionally, Mr. Tinker thought that Mr. Carey’s actions were “clearly an attempt to bolster Carey’s re-election and political agenda.”
Mr. Halbert, also, thought that Mr. Carey’s primary concern “was obviously just for his own re-election.” John Hagan was elected as a “Carey” delegate. He was disappointed with the disruptions that occurred and because the strike fund issue was not discussed.
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-
Dave Keaton
October 11, 1996
Page 1
IBT-PNJ et seq. (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. Chalfant, P-882-JC28-PNW et seq. (September 6, 1996); Rodriguez, P-888-LU630-CLA (September 6, 1996).
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)). However, 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, 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 increased.
The views of the delegates as reported in the Bulletin focus on the Convention, not the pending International election. As in Rodriguez and Chalfant, Mr. Carey is extensively criticized in his capacity as Convention chair in the articles by the delegates. The direct references to Mr. Carey’s candidacy or his campaign by Mr. Tinker and Mr. Halbert are fleeting and made in the context of Mr. Carey’s performance as presiding officer.
Mr. Carey’s political opponent, Mr. Hoffa, is not mentioned at all.
In Chalfant, the Election Officer held that union-financed publications “may contain opinions of the manner in which the Convention was organized or managed . . . so long as such editorializing does not make a connection with the campaign or the International officer election.” The Election Officer further stated:
The actions of the general president at the Convention are not only newsworthy, they invite comment. So long as such commentary does not establish a link to the election or campaign, and is limited to the performance of Mr. Carey’s office as general president or Convention chair, it does not violate the Rules.
Dave Keaton
October 11, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer has also stated, however, that under the “tone, content and timing test,” a union-financed publication “may convey support or opposition to a candidate even if overt campaign material is not present.” Rodriguez. In that case, the Election Officer held that while the tone of the protested delegates’ report was “very critical” of Mr. Carey in his role as Convention chairman, “the Rules do not generally restrict the ability of IBT members to criticize the conduct of legitimate union business by their leaders.” The Election Officer found that the delegates’ criticism of Mr. Carey was “not excessive, in view of their substantive disagreements with [him] on the issues involved in the matters reported.” Accordingly, the Election Officer stated, the report “does not rise to the extra level of a political attack” prohibited by the Rules.
The tone of these personal reports on the Convention are undisputably critical of
Mr. Carey. With the exception of Mr. Hagan, the authors of these articles attribute the failure of the Convention to act on issues of importance to a strategy of delay on the part of
Mr. Carey and his supporters and criticize his performance as presiding officer generally. Under the standards enunciated in Chalfant and Rodriguez, however, this article does not violate the Rules. See also Halberg et al., P-900-LU174-PNW et seq. (September 18, 1996); Hoffa, P-871-IBT-EOH (September 13, 1996).
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 and 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 North 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
Michael D. Gordon, Regional Coordinator