August 28, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Marc Houston
August 28, 1998
Page 1
Marc Houston
8312 Dow Road
Charlotte, NC 28269
Jack Cipriani, President
Teamsters Local Union 391
3100 Sandy Ridge Road
Colfax, NC 27235
Chip Roth
Teamsters Local Union 391
3100 Sandy Ridge Road
Colfax, NC 27235
Paul Alan Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Thomas W. Leedham Campaign Office
Post Office Box 15877
Washington, DC XXX-XX-XXXX
Hoffa Slate
c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.
Baptiste & Wilder
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Metz-Sever Slate
c/o Jim Smith
2833 Cottman Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19149
George O. Suggs, Esq.
Wilburn & Suggs
1015 Locust
Suite 818
St. Louis, MO 63101
Marc Houston
August 28, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-190-LU391-EOH
Gentlemen:
Marc Houston
August 28, 1998
Page 1
Marc Houston, a member of Local Union 71, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Local Union 391 and Chip Roth. Mr. Houston alleges that Mr. Roth suggested the endorsement by Local Union 391 of James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, in an article appearing in The Charlotte Observer (“Observer”) dated July 29, 1998. Mr. Roth and Local Union 391 admit that Mr. Roth was interviewed by a reporter for the Observer and that statements made by him appeared in the article. Both Mr. Roth and Local Union 391 deny, however, that any matter discussed with the Observer violated the Rules.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Counsel David S. Paull.
The protest focuses on an article written by Observer staff writer Ted Reed. Entitled “Teamster campaigns for union presidency,” Mr. Reed’s report discussed the recent campaign tour of Tom Leedham through the states of North and South Carolina. Mr. Leedham is a candidate for general president opposing Mr. Hoffa. The article provides a general background on the pending rerun election and describes some of Mr. Leedham’s activities during his three-day visit. Quotes from Mr. Leedham and a supporting rank-and-file IBT member also appear.
The protester specifically objects to the last four paragraphs of the article which are reproduced below:
The Carolinas are considered Hoffa country, largely because the region’s largest Teamster local, Greensboro Local 391, backs Hoffa. The local has nearly 9,000 members at UPS, area breweries and other employers. (Charlotte Local 71 backed Carey in 1996.) In 1991, Local 391 President R.V. Durham, now retired, was the front-runner for the national presidency before Carey won. Now, local President Jack Cipriani is running on the Hoffa slate.
Local 391 spokesman Chip Roth said Leedham has an impossible job, trying to become known before a scheduled fall election. The task is more difficult because St. Louis Teamster leader John Metz is also running and has the backing of some former Carey supporters.
Roth said Local 391 asked Leedham, the union’s national warehouse director, for support when it tried to organize a strike by Fleming Food warehouse workers in Warsaw in Eastern North Carolina in 1997. Leedham said he did help, bringing in Teamsters from around the country.
But the strike was never called. Said Roth, “What Leedham did was throw roadblocks. He put his politics in front of people’s needs, which is an indication of how poor a president he would be.”
Marc Houston
August 28, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Roth admits that he is a “spokesman” for Local Union 391 and that he conferred with Mr. Reed from the Local Union 391 office prior to making the statements which appear in the article. According to Mr. Roth, the telephone interview lasted about 15 minutes. Mr. Roth contends that Mr. Reed attempted to solicit background information about Mr. Leedham based on Mr. Roth’s own personal experiences. Mr. Roth admits that he never advised Mr. Reed that he was not speaking on behalf of Local Union 391.
The Rules at Article VIII, Section 11(c) provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigning unless the Union is reimbursed at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are notified in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance.
Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) specifically extends the prohibition to “other things of value,” including anything which can be “used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual.”
Mr. Roth’s quoted statement in the last paragraph of the article which he admits inaccurately attacked Mr. Leedham as a candidate and was therefore campaigning. Hoffa, PR-029-IBT-NCE (December 8, 1997); Giacumbo, P-001-IBT-PNJ (September 29, 1995), aff’d in rel. part, 95 - Elec. App. - 32 (KC) (November 1, 1995). Mr. Roth admits that he used the union resource of his office to respond to Mr. Reed’s questions. The Election Officer further concludes that, in making these statements, Mr. Roth utilized his position as spokesman for Local Union 391 to campaign against Mr. Leedham.
Union resources may properly be used to prepare and distribute communications on any subject which affect “the IBT’s institutional interests and is therefore newsworthy and of interest to its members.” Atha, PR-001-IBT-EOH (October 10, 1997); Clemerson, PR-008-LU783-EOH (October 22, 1997); Local Union 745, P-247-IBT-SCE (January 22, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 74 (KC) (February 6, 1996). Mr. Roth’s comment was specifically tied, however, to “how poor a president he [Mr. Leedham] would be.” Regardless of the fact that Mr. Reed initiated the contact, Mr. Roth could certainly have answered his questions in a “non-campaign related manner” or specified that he was not presenting Local Union 391's point of view. Hoffa, PR-016-IBT-NCE (November 17, 1997), aff’d, 97 - Elec. App. - 335 (KC) (December 23, 1997).
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is GRANTED.
Marc Houston
August 28, 1998
Page 1
When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, he “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.
Accordingly, the Election Officer orders Mr. Roth and Local Union 391 shall cease and desist from using union resources to attack the candidacy of Mr. Leedham.
An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. In re Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).
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, Esquire
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