May 5, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
May 5, 1998
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
David L. Neigus
Deputy General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Ken Hall, Director
Parcel and Small Package Trade Division
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
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
James P. Hoffa
May 5, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-079-IBT-EOH
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 IBT, Ken Hall, and Robert Muehlenkamp. Mr. Muehlenkamp directs the IBT’s Organizing Department and Mr. Hall, in addition to recently announcing his candidacy for the office of general president, serves as the IBT’s director of the Parcel and Small Package Trade Division. Mr. Hoffa alleges that a series of regional meetings, scheduled by the IBT to discuss enforcement strategies for the new United Parcel Service (“UPS”) collective bargaining agreement and also to share new approaches to the organizing of the employees of Federal Express (“FedEx”), are a “transparent pretext” providing Mr. Hall and “his supporters” with opportunities to campaign for International office at IBT expense.
The IBT, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Muehlenkamp admit that the meetings referred to in the protest have been scheduled and that they will make presentations at these meetings along with other IBT staff. Mr. Hall and Mr. Muehlenkamp contend, however, that meetings concern legitimate union business and are not election-related.
James P. Hoffa
May 5, 1998
Page 1
The protest was investigated by Election Office Counsel David S. Paull.
The investigation discloses that UPS and the IBT completed negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement in August 1997. Mr. Hall was co-chairman of the IBT committee that negotiated the agreement and he served as a key figure in bargaining.
In October 1997, the IBT began to plan a series of two-day meetings with local union officers, business agents, and stewards. According to an internal IBT document entitled “Proposed UPS ‘New Contract’ Steward Education and FedEx Organizing Training Sessions” dated October 10, 1997, the first day of each meeting would be devoted to acquainting the attendees with the new arbitration and safety provisions contained in the UPS agreement and to present strategies for increasing the number of full-time jobs at UPS. On the second day according to the proposed agenda, various strategies designed to successfully organize FedEx employees would be reviewed.
A TITAN message was sent by Mr. Hall to “All UPS Local Unions” on December 3, 1997, announcing that the four regional meetings had been tentatively set for late January and early February 1998. Stating that “a number of representatives from local unions have called in recent weeks with questions abut the application and enforcement of the new agreement,” the message declared that the purpose of these meetings was “to review the new agreement in depth, discuss enforcement strategies and answer questions concerning interpretation.” The message also indicated that only business agents or local union officers with specific responsibilities for administering the UPS agreement were welcome at the meetings and that stewards would be trained later by the IBT Education Department.
On February 6, 1998, the day that the UPS agreement was ratified by the membership, Mr. Hall sent another TITAN message to “UPS Local Unions” confirming the ratification. The announcement also made general reference to the four regional meetings but still did not set exact dates or locations. A similar announcement was placed in the February 13, 1998 issue of the Teamster UPS Update, a publication financed by the IBT and supervised by Mr. Hall.
On March 26, 1998, the TITAN message which gave rise to the protest was sent by Mr. Hall, announcing that the four regional meetings had been scheduled to take place at the following locations on the dates specified:
Central April 21/22 Cincinnati
South May 11/12 Dallas/Ft. Worth
West May 14/15 Los Angeles Area
East May 26/27 Philadelphia
James P. Hoffa
May 5, 1998
Page 1
According to the IBT, the extended delay in scheduling these meetings was due to the time required to achieve ratification and a delay in printing the new contract.
Mr. Hall declared himself a candidate for IBT General President on April 5, 1998, one week after the TITAN message announcing the meeting schedule and locations.
While participation in “campaign activity” is guaranteed to all members by Article VIII, Section 11(a), the use of union funds and union resources to campaign is prohibited. See, Rules, Article VIII, Section 11 and Article XII, Section 1(b)(3). Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a publication or communication financed directly or indirectly with union funds 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-IBT-PNJ, (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). The Election Officer also considers the context in which the communications appeared.
In Martin, the Election Officer recognized that union officers and officials have a “right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office 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)). Prior decisions of the Election Officer have noted that so long as a report or communication on the activity of an incumbent “is addressed to the regular functions, policies and activities of such incumbents as officers involved in matters of interest to the membership, and not as candidates for reelection, there is no violation of [the Act]”. Donovan v. Metro Dist. Council, 797 F.2d 140, 145 (3d Cir. 1986), citing Camarata, supra.
The protested communication relates directly to the enforcement and administration of the UPS collective bargaining contract and, as such, is addressed to the “regular functions” of the IBT. The topic of organizing has repeatedly been held to constitute legitimate union business. Atha, PR-002-IBT-EOH (October 15, 1997), aff’d, 97 - Elec. App. - 325 (KC) (November 6, 1997) (the UPS negotiations and strike are of legitimate interest to IBT members); Hoffa, PR-064-IBT-EOH (March 23, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 342 (KC) (April 9, 1998) (organizing is a proper subject for communication with IBT members). The planning, scheduling, and preparation of informational meetings on legitimate matters, including the distribution of flyers to announce the dates and locations of sessions, have recently been held by the Election Officer to be proper activities within the Rules. Hoffa, PR-065-IBT-EOH et. seq. (March 23, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 341 (KC) (April 9, 1998). There is no evidence in the protested communication or elsewhere of any advocacy on behalf of a candidate or a partisan reference to the election.
James P. Hoffa
May 5, 1998
Page 1
The Election Officer concludes that, as Director of the Parcel and Small Package Division, it is appropriate for Mr. Hall to make announcements and participate in meetings scheduled to explain the recent UPS contract modifications to members. Further, Mr. Muehlenkamp, as the Director of Organizing, is a proper person to participate in meetings to explain new organizing strategies.
Further, the timing of these communications and proposed meetings fails to provide evidence of the improper use of union resources. The decision to hold the meetings was made in October 1997, long before Mr. Hall’s declaration as a candidate. The evidence establishes that the current schedule is a function of the time required for ratification and the printing of the contracts. The decision limiting the guests to local union officers and business agents with direct UPS contract-related responsibilities while presently excluding stewards and the general membership, further establishes that the meetings concern the legitimate union business of administering the UPS contract and the lack of a campaign-related purpose.
For the reasons stated above, the protest is DENIED.
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
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master