October 30, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Bob Knox
October 30, 1996
Page 1
Bob Knox
8149 Henry Ruff
Westland, MI 48185
David Freeman Equipment
910 S. Dix
Detroit, MI 48217
Ed McCarty, General Manager
Enterprise Rent-a-Car
9125 Gaither Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Bob Knox
October 30, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-1046-LU337-MOI
P-1047-LU337-MGN
Gentlemen:
Bob Knox, a member of Local Union 1038, filed two pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that Hoffa campaign stickers were affixed to equipment rented in conjunction with a movie shoot in Detroit, Michigan on October 1, 1996. In P-1046-LU337-MOI, Mr. Knox alleges that he saw a Hoffa sticker attached to a personnel lift (cherry picker) owned by David Freeman Equipment Rentals (“Freeman”) at the site of the shoot. In P-1047-LU337-MGN, Mr. Knox alleges that he saw several Hoffa stickers attached to a van owned by Enterprise Rent-a-Car (“Enterprise”) at the site. The Election Officer consolidated these protests for decision because they arise from the same situation and involve the same sections of the Rules.
Bob Knox
October 30, 1996
Page 1
The protest in P-1046-LU337-MOI was investigated by Regional Coordinator Michael D. Gordon. The protest in P-1047-LU337-MGN was investigated by Regional Coordinator William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Mr. Knox alleges that in mid-September 1996, another person told him about seeing a Hoffa sticker on equipment at a movie shoot near the intersection of John R and Woodward Streets in Detroit. He alleges that he went to the location on October 1 and saw one sticker on the Freeman personnel lift and several stickers on an Enterprise van.
The investigation showed that Polish Wedding Productions (“PWP”), affiliated with Lakeshore Entertainment of Hollywood, California (“Lakeshore”), was shooting a movie called “Polish Wedding” at that location. Filming in Detroit stopped on October 8, 1996, and all rented vehicles and equipment have been returned. As of October 18, PWP’s phone number in Detroit was no longer in service.
The presence of stickers on the rented equipment is undisputed. After consultation with Regional Coordinator Gordon, Freeman wrote to PWP and Lakeshore on October 11, 1996, and asked them to “take whatever steps necessary to prevent campaign materials for Hoffa, or any other candidate for International Teamster office, from being posted or affixed to our equipment and promptly to remove any such materials that are found on our equipment.”
Enterprise states that six of its vans were rented for the filming and that all six were returned with Hoffa campaign material affixed to them. Enterprise informed Regional Coordinator Wertheimer on October 15, 1996 that the use of its vehicles for partisan political purposes was inappropriate and that the company “circulated a note via internal mail to all of our Local Corporate Account Managers in an effort to prevent this from happening in the future.”
During the investigation involving Freeman, PWP advised Regional Coordinator Gordon that members of Local Union 337 had been working on its shoot.[1] On October 11, 1996, the Hoffa campaign wrote to Local Union 337 President Lawrence Brennan, asking him to “advise your business agents and other staff” of the Hoffa campaign’s position against improper affixing of campaign material and asking Mr. Brennan to “request their cooperation in ensuring that campaign materials are not affixed to employer or union property.”[2] The Hoffa campaign attached a memorandum from general president candidate James P. Hoffa on the subject, issued about two weeks earlier.
Bob Knox
October 30, 1996
Page 1
“Nothing in . . . the Rules authorizes members to affix campaign material to employer-owned trucks . . .” Hoffa, P-992-LU707-NYC (October 7, 1996). While the Rules protect the ability of members to support candidates of their own choosing, that protection does not extend to affixing campaign stickers and other material to property that belongs to an employer.[3] As the Election Officer stated in Phelan, P-711-LU550-NYC (April 23, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec.
App. - 184 (KC) (May 6, 1996), “[t]he Rules protect campaigning as a personal right of IBT members and require that it be exercised that way.”
Affixing campaign material to employer property has other consequences as well. Putting such material on an employer’s truck has the effect, under the Rules, of causing the employer to make an improper campaign contribution in violation of Article XII,
Section 1(b)(1), even if the affixing of the sticker was against employer policy.[4] Putting stickers on employer trucks can also create a false impression of employer endorsement, which would be another form of improper campaign contribution. See Feeley, P-874-LU817-MGN
(September 17, 1996); Maney, P-956-IATSE-NYC et seq. (October 2, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 251 (KC) (October 15, 1996); Knox, P-1006-SFD-MGN (October 14, 1996).
Furthermore, under Article XII, Section 1(b)(9) of the Rules, International officer candidates “are strictly liable to insure that each contribution received is permitted under the Rules.” Therefore, affixing a campaign sticker or sign to an employer truck results in a violation of the Rules on the part of the candidate who the member intends to support.
On the record in this matter, the Election Officer finds that the Hoffa campaign stickers on the Freeman personnel lift and the six Enterprise vans used at the Polish Wedding film shoot were affixed in violation of the Rules.
With respect to Freeman and Enterprise, the Election Officer recognizes that employer-renters of vehicles and other equipment may not have effective control over the appearance of stickers on their property during the term of rental. In this matter, the Election Officer finds that their actions in removing stickers upon the return of the equipment, and in making reasonable efforts to prevent reoccurrences, were appropriate under the Rules.
For the foregoing reasons, the protest in P-1046-LU337-MOI with respect to Freeman is RESOLVED. The protest in P-1047-LU337-MGN with respect to Enterprise is RESOLVED. Both protests with respect to the Hoffa campaign are GRANTED.
Bob Knox
October 30, 1996
Page 1
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.
In this matter, the Election Officer notes that the Hoffa campaign communicated with
Mr. Brennan after receiving its copy of the protest in P-1046-LU337-MOI, and requested further distribution of Mr. Hoffa’s memo, described above, to Local Union 337 business agents and other staff.
With respect to the role of International officer campaigns, the Election Officer has recently reaffirmed that “International officer candidates and slates have an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that their campaign materials are not affixed improperly to private property . . .” Sweeney, P-1058-LU807-NYC (October 28, 1996); Willett, P-863-LU331-PNJ (August 16, 1996). Thus, “[t]he Election Officer expects International officer campaigns, when they receive notice of protests involving campaign material improperly affixed to employer property, to take their share of responsibility for ensuring that such materials are removed promptly.” Sweeney, P-1029-RCS-NYC et seq. (October 28, 1996).
The Election Officer notes that the stickers involved in the protests consolidated in this decision have been removed. The presence of members from five local unions at a movie shoot in the Detroit area is unlikely to be repeated before the International officer election.
Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that no further remedy is required at this time.
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
Bob Knox
October 30, 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
Michael D. Gordon, Regional Coordinator
William A. Wertheimer, Jr., Regional Coordinator
[1]Further investigation showed that members of five local unions worked on the Polish Wedding shoot: Local Unions 299, 337, 372, 614, and 2040.
[2]The letter was addressed to Mr. Brennan at his office at Joint Council 43, where he is president. The other four local unions are under the jurisdiction of this joint council as well.
[3]Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules states, “All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to . . . support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.”
[4]This section states, “No employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate.” Knowledge on the part of the employer is not an element of this violation.