January 28, 1999
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Robert L. Doss
January 28, 1999
Page 1
Robert L. Doss
12535 Aspenview Street
Victorville, CA 92392
Leedham Slate
c/o Tom Leedham Campaign Office
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
Randy Cammack, Sec.-Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 63
845 Oak Park Road
Covina, CA 91724
Robert L. Doss
January 28, 1999
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-403-LU63-EOH
Gentlemen:
Robert Doss, a member of Local Union 63 and a supporter of Jim Hoffa, the general president-elect, filed a pre-election protest on November 12, 1998, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against the Tom Leedham “Rank and File Power” Slate (“Leedham Slate”). The protester alleges that the Leedham Slate and its supporters mailed campaign literature to several hundred employers under the jurisdiction of Local Union 63 without sufficient postage thereby causing these employers to pay 23 cents for each envelope that was delivered in this fashion. As a result, the protester contends that the Leedham slate has received improper contributions from the employers that paid the postage that was due and distributed the campaign literature to employees. The protester claims that he and other business agents received several calls from employer representatives seeking guidance regarding the distribution of this campaign literature. The protester assumes that the Leedham Slate used a copy of Local Union 63's list of approximately 400 employer worksites and mailed the campaign literature to all employers on this list. The protester notes that the address of Local Union 63's former hiring hall was used as the return address for this campaign literature. In support of these allegations, the protester submitted three envelopes originally sent to three facilities of the same employer, “Stater Brothers, c/o Shop Steward” that were returned to Local Union 63 for insufficient postage and contained the literature at issue.
Robert L. Doss
January 28, 1999
Page 1
The protester requests the Election Officer to order the Leedham Slate to do the following: (1) reimburse all employers who covered the insufficient postage; (2) mail at its expense campaign literature supporting the other candidates running for general president and (3) post a notice at all worksites of Local Union 63 stating that the Leedham Slate violated the Rules. The Leedham slate did not respond to the protester’s allegations.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Kathryn A. Naylor.
The Election Officer deferred this protest for post-election review pursuant to his authority under Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2).
These matters are being considered in a post-election context. Therefore, the Election Officer will examine whether the violations “may have affected the outcome of the election.” As the Election Officer previously stated in Cheatem, Post 27-EOH (August 21, 1997),
[T]he Election Office concludes that this election is presumed to be fair and regular. Therefore, in order to grant a post-election protest, the evidence must overcome this presumption by demonstrating a violation of the Rules that may have affected the outcome of the election. This is consistent with DOL’s standard for certification of supervised elections.
The campaign literature at issue in this protest supports the candidacy of Tom Leedham, the unsuccessful candidate for general president in the International Officer Rerun Election, and denigrates the candidacies of Mr. Hoffa, the general president-elect, and Randy Cammack, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 63 and one of the five at-large vice presidents-elect on the Hoffa Unity Slate. Accordingly, the election results indicate that the protester’s allegations regarding the Leedham Slate or its supporters did not have any effect on the outcome of the election.
Robert L. Doss
January 28, 1999
Page 1
Despite the fact that the distribution of this campaign literature did not affect the outcome of the election, candidates are “strictly liable” to ensure that all contributions received are permitted under the Rules and must return improper contributions promptly. Rules, Art. XII, Section 1(b)(9). The Leedham Slate was offered the opportunity to respond to these allegations and submitted nothing. The protester, however, submitted evidence showing that the mailing occurred as alleged. The protester provided the Election Officer with envelopes showing the “postage due” amount of $ 0.23 each. The protester stated that he personally fielded numerous calls from employers regarding this campaign literature, as did other Local Union 63 business agents. The Election Officer finds that the Leedham Slate benefitted from the mailing and distribution of the campaign literature at issue and received improper employer contributions as a result of employers covering the insufficient postage in order to receive the campaign literature. Based on this record, the Election Officer has a reasonable basis to conclude that the campaign literature was mailed to the majority if not all of the employers on the worksite list of Local Union 63.
Because only one piece of literature was mailed to each employer worksite, a $0.23 refund per employer is neither practical nor sensible. Thus, the Election Officer directs the Leedham Slate to pay $92 to remedy its receipt of improper employer contributions, to the Election Office within five (5) days of the date of this decision. The fine of $92 is calculated based on the number of employers on Local Union 63's worksite list and the amount of postage that was due per envelope (400 x .23 cents).
Based on the Election Officer’s conclusion that the improper distribution of the pro-Leedham campaign literature did not affect the outcome, 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. Request for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 100
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
Enclosure
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master