August 14, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Kenneth E. Hilbish
August 14, 1998
Page 1
Kenneth E. Hilbish, President
Teamsters Local Union 528
2540 Lakewood Avenue, SW
Atlanta, GA 30315
Donald S. Scott, President
Teamsters Local Union 728
2540 Lakewood Avenue, SW
Atlanta, GA 30315
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
Kenneth E. Hilbish
August 14, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-177-LU728-EOH
Gentlemen:
Kenneth E. Hilbish, president of Local Union 528, 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 Local Union 728 and the Teamsters Local 528 and Local 728 Building Corporation (“Building Fund”). Mr. Hilbish alleges that Local Union 728 and the Building Fund improperly discriminated against James P. Hoffa by refusing to rent a union meeting hall to his campaign for a fundraising rally. Mr. Hoffa is candidate for general president. Local Union 728 and the Building Fund deny refusing to rent the hall to Mr. Hoffa.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Counsel David S. Paull.
The investigation disclosed that Local Union 528 and Local Union 728 are joint owners of a building in Atlanta, Georgia. A large meeting room is situated between the structures which house the two local union offices. All of the union property is jointly owned in the name of the Building Fund, which is governed by a board of four directors. The protester, another member of Local Union 528 and Local Union 728 members Donald S. Scott and Richard Black constitute the current board of directors. Mr. Scott is also the president of Local Union 728 and Mr. Black serves as the secretary - treasurer.
Kenneth E. Hilbish
August 14, 1998
Page 1
Both local unions maintain a policy prohibiting the use of the hall for political purposes. Two exceptions have been made to this policy. The first occurred in 1991 when Local Union 728 was permitted to sponsor a forum which was attended by several candidates for regional vice - president. A second deviation occurred on September 8, 1996. On that date, the meeting hall was made available to the Carey Campaign for a campaign rally on condition that a rental in the amount of $500 be paid. At the same meeting, the Board of Directors decided to invite Mr. Hoffa to use the meeting hall for a campaign function. Mr. Hoffa was notified, but declined. See, Parker, P-932-LU728-SEC et.seq. (October 3, 1996).[1]
On July 15, 1998, the following letter was delivered to the Building Fund, signed by Mr. Hilbish in his capacity as president of Local Union 528:
Hand Delivered on July 15, 1998
Local 528 would like to take this opportunity to make an open invitation to the candidates for General President to come to Atlanta. This invitation will be to discuss open issues with the members, as was done in 1995-96 when General President, Ron Carey came to the Local. Therefore, I am requesting the cost of using the Union Hall and whatever else would be needed so it can be related to all candidates.
Also, I am asking for the approval of the remaining Building Fund Board. Please respond in writing by Friday, July 17, 1998.
I would like to know if the Building Fund will be notifying the candidates or will Local 528. Thank you.
According to Mr. Scott, the letter sent by Mr. Hilbish confused him. Based on the first two sentences and the question as to which entity would be notifying the candidates, Mr. Hilbish’s letter appeared to be an attempt, on behalf of Local Union 528, to sponsor a candidate forum at which all candidates for a particular office would be invited to participate. However, because he had also requested the cost of using the meeting hall and because he referred to the previous use of the facility by the Carey Campaign, Mr. Scott questioned whether or not Mr. Hilbish was acting, not on behalf of Local Union 528, but in his capacity as a member and supporter of the Hoffa Campaign.
Kenneth E. Hilbish
August 14, 1998
Page 1
To clear up the matter, Mr. Scott asked Mr. Black to talk with the protester. Mr. Black attempted to do so on the day the letter was delivered. Mr. Hilbish was not available and Mr. Black left word with Mr. Hilbish’s secretary. Without first contacting Mr. Black, Mr. Hilbish secured another site in the Atlanta area at a cost in excess of the $500 that had been charged by the Building Fund to the Carey Campaign in 1996. Mr. Hilbish therefore contends that Local Union 728 should pay to the Hoffa Campaign all amounts paid in excess of $500.
Mr. Hilbish confirms that his schedule often renders him unavailable and admits that he never returned Mr. Black’s visit or otherwise tried to communicate with either Mr. Scott or Mr. Black prior to obtaining the alternative site. The Election Officer received the protest five days after the letter was first delivered. Both Mr. Scott and Mr. Black, in their capacities as members of the Building Fund Board of Directors, indicated a willingness to consider reinstating the previous invitation to Mr. Hoffa and rent the facility to him on the same terms as Mr. Carey.
It is well established that local unions are under no obligation to make their premises available to candidates for campaign purposes and the Rules are designed to discourage such activity. Hoffa, P-1009-IBT-CSF (October 17,1996). Where such access is permitted, however, the Rules carefully intervene to provide for equal access. Galcatcher, PR-078-LU523-SOU (May 20, 1998). Article VIII, Section 5(a) (3), which specifically applies to union meetings, provides:
(3) The Local Union need not allot time for campaigning during any of its meetings. However, if campaigning during such meetings is permitted, the Local Union shall notify all candidates for the positions for which such campaigning will be permitted of the opportunity to speak at least five (5) days prior to the meeting and shall divide the time equally between those candidates (or the candidates’ credentialed representatives) who request an opportunity to speak. The order of appearance shall be determined by lot.
Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4), which applies to both formal union activities such as meetings and all other informal activities such as the rental of the union hall by a candidate, states in pertinent part:
(4) A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor or against any candidate in conjunction with its meeting or otherwise. This requirement shall apply not only to formal presentations by or on behalf of candidates but also informal campaign activities . . .
Kenneth E. Hilbish
August 14, 1998
Page 1
The advance notice required by Article VIII, Section 5(a)(3) converts the meeting into a candidate forum at which all candidates who decide to attend have an equal chance to seek voter support. A local union may choose to recover expenses from the candidates or charge fees in connection with the forum. However, the failure to charge fees or seek reimbursement of costs does not violate the Rules since a forum for all candidates or slates does not constitute advocacy for or against any particular candidate or slate and is therefore not improper campaign activity. Rules, Article VIII, Section 11(c) and Hoffa, PR-029-IBT-NCE (December 8, 1997).
No advance notice is required for the informal events contemplated in Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4). However, local unions are required to make such campaign opportunities available to all other candidates on similar terms. Once a local union charges a candidate a fee to use its facilities under Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4), it cannot properly permit another candidate to use the facility on a different basis.
Neither Local Union 728 nor the Building Fund violated the Rules when Mr. Scott and Mr. Black failed to respond to Mr. Hilbish’s letter within the time stated. The conduct cited by the protester -- a failure to respond immediately to a request for facilities -- does not violate the Rules. Moreover, their confusion was understandable because the letter fails to clearly distinguish between a forum made up of a group of candidates with advance notice under Article VIII, Section 5(a)(3) and the use of a union facility by a single candidate or slate under Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4). Once the letter was received, Mr. Scott and Mr. Black acted promptly to determine Mr. Hilbish’s actual intention. Mr. Hilbish made no attempt to contact the other members of the Building Fund Board of Directors and obtained an alternative site for the rally before the answers to Mr. Scott’s question should reasonably have been provided.
Accordingly, 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
Kenneth E. Hilbish
August 14, 1998
Page 1
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
[1] Because the meeting hall was made available to Mr. Hoffa on substantially the same terms as Mr. Carey, his protest against Local Union 728 was dismissed. However, Local Union 728 was determined to be in violation of the Rules in the other consolidated protest because it failed to include a second slate of candidates in the notice.