This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

September 16, 1998




Tom Leedham Slate

September 16, 1998

Page 1


Tom Leedham Slate

c/o Tom Leedham Campaign Office

P.O. Box 15877

Washington, DC 20003


Carroll E. Haynes, President

Teamsters Local Union 237

216 W. 14th Street

New York, NY 10011


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 16, 1998

Page 1


Re:  Election Office Case No. PR-264-LU237-EOH




Tom Leedham, 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 Local Union 237.  Mr. Leedham alleged that Local Union 237 used union resources to support James P. Hoffa, an opposing candidate.  Carl Haynes, president of Local Union 237, denied that any union resources were improperly used to support the candidacy of Mr. Hoffa.


The protest was investigated by Election Office Counsel David S. Paull.


Tom Leedham Slate

September 16, 1998

Page 1


The protest was filed on the basis of an article appearing in The Chief-Leader (“The Chief”) dated August 28, 1998.  The Chief, according to the protester, is published on a regular basis by the “New York Civil Service.”   The protester objects to two items contained in the article.  The first appears at the beginning of the article and reports that Local Union 237  “hosted . . . an Aug. 20 rally in support of James P. Hoffa’s campaign.”  The second occurs in the seventh paragraph of the article and contains the following statement: 


Asked about the attitude of his members toward the contest, Mr. Haynes said that Local 237 was  “only in the beginning stages of reaching out to them.”


Mr. Haynes states that the article in The Chief  incorrectly declares that the rally supporting Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy was sponsored by Local Union 237.  According to Mr. Haynes, Mr. Hoffa rented a meeting room in Local Union 237 hall for the event.  On behalf of Local Union 237, Mr. Haynes submitted a copy of a letter addressed to “all candidates” dated August 19, 1998.  The letter announced the availability of “Local 237's meeting room . . . during normal business hours” to all candidates upon payment of a rental fee of $200.00.  The evidence presented by Local Union 237 further establishes that copies of the letter were sent to all pertinent candidates. 


Mr. Haynes further asserts that his statement to The Chief  was that he, and not Local Union 237" was “only in the beginning stages of reaching out to them [the members of Local Union 237].”  According to Mr. Haynes, The Chief is completely inaccurate to the extent that the article indicates that Local Union 237 was “reaching out” to members on behalf of the Hoffa Campaign.


Local unions need not 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 strictly provide for equal access.  Galcatcher, PR-078-LU523-SOU (May 20, 1998).  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 . . .


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.  See Hilbish, PR-177-LU728-EOH (August 14, 1998).


Additionally, Article XII, Sections 1(b)(1) and (3) of the Rules prohibit a labor organization from using its funds or resources “to promote the candidacy of any individual.”  The Rules define campaign contribution broadly to include any direct or indirect contribution where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence the election of a candidate.  Rules, Definitions, 5. 

Tom Leedham Slate

September 16, 1998

Page 1


The protester contends that the article which is the focus of this protest establishes that Local Union 237 “has violated the Election Rules prohibiting utilization of the Union resources to aid a candidacy.”   Mr. Leedham has completely failed, however, to support this allegation with any credible evidence.  By contrast, Local Union 237 has provided evidence showing that the Hoffa campaign rally was conducted in compliance with the Rules and that neither the funds or the resources of Local Union 237 were used to support Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy. 


The protester bears the burden of proof to present evidence that a violation has occurred.  Rules, Article XIV, Section 1.  The Election Officer has consistently denied protests when the protester offers no evidence to corroborate and support his allegations.  Hoffa, PR-043-LU385-SCE (January 9, 1998); Pike, P-278-LU952-CLA (January 30, 1996).  The protester has not met this burden.


For the foregoing reasons, 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.






Michael G. Cherkasky

Election Officer




cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master