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

November 3, 1998




Marty Frates

November 3, 1998

Page 1


Marty Frates

2915 Windsor Drive

Alameda, CA 94501


Ken Paff

Teamsters for a Democratic


7435 Michigan Avenue

Detroit, MI 48210


Paul Alan Levy, Esq.

Public Citizen Litigation


1600 20th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

Charles R. Engel

71 Ball Road

Walnut Creek, CA 94596


Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.

Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure

113 University Place

New York, NY 10003


Tom Leedham Campaign Office

P.O. Box 15877

Washington, DC 20003

Marty Frates

November 3, 1998

Page 1


Re: Election Office Case No. PR-351-LU78-EOH




Marty Frates, a member of Local Union 70, 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 Charles R. Engel, a member of Local Union 78. 

Mr. Frates alleges that Mr. Engles was distributing copies of the Convoy Dispatch, a publication of the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”) in the lunch room at a United Parcel Service (“UPS”) facility in Oakland, California.  Mr. Frates contends that these actions violate the Rules because the Convoy Dispatch (and presumably TDU) are not subject to the same restrictions and rules on contributions as are members and candidates.


TDU responds that the protest does not state a violation of the Rules.


This protest was investigated by Deputy Election Officer Benetta M. Mansfield.


Marty Frates

November 3, 1998

Page 1


There is no factual dispute.  On October 20, 1998, Mr. Engels distributed copies of the Convoy Dispatch in the UPS lunchroom.  The Election Officer has previously noted that UPS considers its lunch room to be a non-work area and that employees in the lunch room are on non-working time.  See, e.g., Iund, PR-290-LU638-NCE (October 21, 1998); Young, P-1256-LU41-MOI (November 27,1996).


The Election Officer has also repeatedly noted that the Convoy Dispatch is considered to be campaign literature.  See Hoffa, P-313-LU728-SEC ( February 27, 1996); Hoffa, P-1049-LU104-RMT (November 1, 1996); Welsh, P-1147-LU385-SEC (November 18, 1996).


Therefore, the only issue presented is whether the Convoy Dispatch itself is a contribution by TDU subject to the restrictions embodied in the Rules.  As the Election Officer stated in Hoffa, PR-172-TDU-EOH (August 10, 1998):


It is well established that TDU is an independent committee under the Rules, defined as a caucus or group of union members not controlled by a candidate or slate that accepts funds or makes expenditures with the “purpose, object or foreseeable effect” of influencing the International election.  Rules, Definitions, at

Section 22; Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosures (Revised November 1997) (“Advisory”); Hoffa, PR-039-IBT-EOH (March 10, 1998); Halberg, P-019-LU174-PNW (December 14, 1995) (decision on remand).  As an “independent committee,” the TDU may contribute to International campaigns even if it receives financial assistance from sources prohibited under the Rules.  The Rules require that monetary support for campaign activities consist exclusively of funds received from IBT members.  Funds received from any other sources cannot be contributed to any candidate through TDU, or any other independent committee, and must be properly allocated and segregated.  In re Gully, 91-Elec. App. - 158 (SA) (June 12, 1991), aff’g Sargent, P-249-LU283-MGN (May 21, 1991).


Since the Election Officer’s decision in Gully, TDU has been required to segregate IBT member funds used for campaign activities from other revenues, and to allocate its costs between permitted campaign activities and other non-campaign activities.  To implement this allocation requirement, TDU has operated an accounting program known as the Huddleston system.  The Election Officer has recently determined that the Huddleston system was correctly modified by the TDU to account for the additional accounting restrictions contained in the Rerun Plan.  Hoffa, PR-039-IBT-EOH (March 10, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 341 (KC) (April 9, 1998).  The Convoy Dispatch is funded solely from costs allocated from campaign activities.


Therefore, there is no evidence that the Convoy Dispatch is funded by improper monies under the Rules.


Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.


Marty Frates

November 3, 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.






Michael G. Cherkasky

Election Officer


cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master