September 1, 1998
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Donald Barnett
September 1, 1998
Page 1
Donald Barnett
1915 Cambridge Lane
Wheaton, IL 60187
Larry “Crash” Hartigan
6000 West 127th Street
Pacos Heights, IL 60463
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Donald Barnett
September 1, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-129-LU705-NCE
Gentlemen:
Donald Barnett, a member of Local Union 705, 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 Larry Hartigan, a member of Local Union 705. The protester alleged that Mr. Hartigan solicited improper contributions in support of James P. Hoffa, a candidate for International general president. Mr. Hartigan denied the allegation.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
Mr. Hartigan admits that he mailed campaign literature supporting Mr. Hoffa in plain envelopes to a variety of worksites employing Local Union 705 members, directing the mailings in care of employers to the “705 Drivers’ Room.” The item sent in the envelope by Mr. Hartigan was a “Hoffa gram,” a one-page document styled as a press release containing information on Mr. Hoffa’s campaign. At the bottom of the page the document reads, “Please copy and distribute.” Mr. Hartigan did not enclose any other explanation or direction regarding the use of the campaign literature.
Donald Barnett
September 1, 1998
Page 1
Article XII, Sections 1(a) and 1(b)(1) of the Rules prohibit an employer from making any campaign contributions to the general campaign fund of a candidate. The Rules define campaign contributions to include “any direct or indirect contribution of money or other thing of value where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence the election of a candidate.” Rules, Definitions, 5. The Election Officer has held that the distribution by employers of printed material that had the “purpose, object or foreseeable effect . . . to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate” is an impermissible employer campaign contribution. Young, PR-006-LU41-NCE (November 4, 1997).
The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(d) provide as follows:
(d) No restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity. Similarly, no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fund-raising events or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a nondiscriminatory basis.
The rights of non-employees to campaign on employer premises is controlled by Article VIII, Section 11(d), which requires the showing of an established “pre-existing” right. Lopez, P-667-LU743-CHI (April 8, 1996). However, Mr. Hartigan does not contend that a pre-existing right to campaign existed at any of the shops to which he sent literature. Instead, he argues that his actions are permissible because during the initial election, he asked a representative of the Election Officer whether he could send literature to union members at their worksites. He stated that, “She suggested I address it to the attention of Local 705 employees at the employers’ addresses . . . .” The investigation discloses that the Election Officer representative in question does not recall having any such conversation.
The Election Officer finds that the act of addressing an envelope to the “705 Driver’s Room” is not a violation of the Rules. Mr. Hartigan did not direct the campaign literature to the employer or ask the employer to distribute such literature. While there is the potential that the employer could open, copy, and distribute the literature which would clearly be a Rules violation there is no evidence that happened here. The Election Officer, however, asserts that Mr. Hartigan’s actions create the potential for a Rules violation and the better course of conduct would be to deliver the literature to an employee at the worksite for appropriate distribution or posting.
Accordingly, this protest is DENIED.
Donald Barnett
September 1, 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
MGC:chh
Enclosures
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator