September 22, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Tom Leedham Slate
September 22, 1998
Page 1
Tom Leedham Slate
c/o Tom Leedham Campaign Office
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
Gerald L. Hood, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 959
4300 Boniface Parkway,4th Floor
Anchorage, AK 99504
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
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
Hoffa Slate, c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.
Baptiste & Wilder
1150 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Tom Leedham Slate
September 22, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-262-LU959-EOH
Gentlemen:
Tom Leedham, a candidate for general president, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Local Union 959. Mr. Leedham alleged that the Alaska Teamster, a regular union-financed publication of Local Union 959, contained a statement which supported his opponent. Local Union 959 has not responded to the protest. James P. Hoffa, a candidate who opposes Mr. Leedham for general president, contends that the protested statement does not support his candidacy and that he had “nothing to do with drafting or disseminating the newsletter in question.”
The protest was investigated by Election Office Counsel David S. Paull.
The protest focuses on the Alaska Teamster dated for July - September 1998. An article entitled “International Slates And Candidates Announced” appeared on page 6 of the newsletter. The article listed the various slates and independent candidates and further set out the election schedule as it existed at that time. Additionally, the article contained the following statement:
Tom Leedham Slate
September 22, 1998
Page 1
You will note the Jim Hoffa Unity Slate is the only slate which chose to field a candidate for each Executive Board position provided for by the IBT constitution.
Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication 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 also 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 protester contends that “[T]his commentary amounts to the use of the newsletter to make an improper campaign pitch for the Hoffa Slate.” The sentence protested, however, fails to express support for any candidate. Rather, the remark informs members that only one slate has selected a candidate for each position and, in a non-partisan manner, names the slate. Because the members will have the option to select a single slate or cast a ballot for individual candidates, this information is both newsworthy and legitimate. Therefore, Local Union 959 did not violate the Rules when it used union funds and its regular publication to supply members with this information. Carter, P-377-LU71-SEC (February 16, 1996) (union-financed publication may report election-related information).
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:
Tom Leedham Slate
September 22, 1998
Page 1
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