James P. Hoffa
December 18, 1998
Page 1
December 18, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
James P. Hoffa
December 18, 1998
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Robert Muehlenkamp
Organizing Department
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
David L. Neigus
General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
James P. Hoffa
December 18, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR‑074-IBT-EOH
Decision on Remand
Gentlemen:
James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, 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 International Brotherhood of Teamsters and IBT Organizing Director Robert Muehlenkamp. The protester alleged that the IBT and
Mr. Muehlenkamp used the resources of the Organizing Department to support the re‑election and rerun election campaigns of Ron Carey. Specifically, the protester alleged that organizers employed by the IBT were “pervasively assigned to campaign for the Carey slate while on Union time.” The IBT denies that any resources of the Union were used to support Mr. Carey's campaign.
James P. Hoffa
December 18, 1998
Page 1
In a decision dated September 23, 1998, the Election Officer denied the protest in its entirety. The protester appealed this decision to the Election Appeals Master claiming, in part, that the Election Officer failed to consider evidence submitted in July and August 1997 concerning the deployment of IBT paid organizers to campaign for Mr. Carey during the fall of 1996 in Texas.[1]
On October 16, 1998, the Election Appeals Master issued his decision in Hoffa, 98 - Elec. App. - 391 (KC) affirming the Election Officer’s decision in major part. The Election Appeals Master remanded the decision for investigation of this allegation, stating, in pertinent part:
As to... [the general allegation that the Organizing Department resources were used to support the Carey election effort], Mr. Hoffa’s counsel has in his appeals submission to me referenced earlier, potentially relevant evidence and information submitted to the Election Officer pertaining to IBT members Wesley Coleman and Richard Summers. It is unclear whether the Election Officer has ever reviewed and evaluated this material, or acted upon it. This portion of the protest is accordingly remanded to the Election Officer for an appropriate response.
As stated by the Election Officer in In re Carey Slate, PR-035-EOH (April 27, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 348 (KC) (May 15, 1998), aff’d in rel. part, 88 Civ. 4486 (DNE) (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 1998) and In re Cheatem, Post-27-EOH (KC) (November 17, 1997) and reiterated in the Election Officer’s decision in this case, no further remedies will be imposed for misconduct relating to the initial election. The allegation on remand was therefore investigated for the purpose of obtaining background information, determining if the alleged conduct reflected a pattern or modus operandi pertinent to the Rerun Election and determining what, if any, remedies would be necessary to protect the integrity of the Rerun Election.
Following the remand, Regional Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt conducted the further investigation. The Election Officer reviewed the statements previously submitted by Messrs. Coleman and Somers. The protester offered additional witnesses, who were also interviewed during the investigation. The investigator interviewed Wesley Coleman, Richard Somers, Doug Collier, Sergio Ponce, Tim Raiter, and John Reynolds. In addition, the investigator reviewed sworn depositions given to the Independent Review Board (“IRB”) on the same subject by
James P. Hoffa
December 18, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Coleman, Mr. Somers, Mr. Collier, Mr. Ponce, Mr. Raiter, Mr. Reynolds, John McClain and John Reynolds.
All of the witnesses interviewed by the Election Officer and the IRB had been employed by the IBT in Houston, Texas during the fall of 1996, working on a campaign to organize the workers at Overnite Transportation (“Overnite”) and signing up as union members part-time workers at United Parcel Service (“UPS”). There was a substantial difference in the statements of Mr. Coleman and Mr. Somers and the other witnesses interviewed. Mr. Coleman and
Mr. Somers state that during this time, when they were supposed to be organizing at Overnite and UPS, there was frequent campaigning for Ron Carey on IBT-paid time. The other witnesses uniformly disagree with the contentions of Mr. Coleman and Mr. Somers. All of them admit that campaigning for Mr. Carey occurred, but emphatically state that it only took place on the organizers’ own time. Those witnesses, specifically, Mr. Raiter, Mr. Collier, Mr. Ponce and
Mr. Reynolds, state that the organizing work had to be done when the target employees were changing shifts or were on their break. These times were often in different segments of the day, very early in the morning and requested work in the middle of the night. The organizing work, although it had them at the facility for 14-16 hours on some days so that all shift changes and meal times would be covered, consumed only 5 to 8 hours union tine and did not require continuous work. Some of the organizations used that free time between the time of organizing contacts to campaign for Mr. Carey.
Based upon all of the evidence, the Election Officer does not find that there was pervasive campaigning on IBT-time in Houston, Texas in 1996. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that none of the witnesses, including Messrs. Coleman and Somers, had any knowledge of any improper campaigning for any candidate for International office during the International Officer Rerun Election in 1998. Therefore, the Election Officer finds that the evidence does not support the allegation by the protester.
All of the witnesses agree that campaigning took place at the facilities where the IBT was mounting the organizing drives. There is no question that these were legitimate organizing efforts of the IBT. The Overnite campaign, for example, started before the Carey administration and has continued for many years. It was not a Carey administration fabrication to put his sympathizers in the field. The issue in dispute is whether organizers engaged in campaign activity on union time. The discontinuous schedule of the organizing work means that organizers would have had some non-IBT hours in which to campaign for the candidates they support. Six witnesses gave sworn testimony that the campaigning occurred on personal time.
Accordingly, that portion of the protest remanded to the Election Officer for further investigation is DENIED.
James P. Hoffa
December 18, 1998
Page 1
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
J. Griffin Morgan, Regional Coordinator
Barbara C. Deinhardt, NYC Protest Coordinator
[1] Some of the evidence, which was submitted in the form of affidavits, had been submitted by the protester on the same day that the Election Officer issued her decision in Cheatem, Post-27-EOH (August 21, 1997). The evidence was submitted to support Mr. Hoffa’s position that the Election Officer should proceed “to overturn the [1996] election without further delay.”