WASHINGTON – Today, Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) sent letters to International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O’Brien, AFL-CIO President Elizabeth Shuler, and Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry demanding answers regarding their respective unions’ attempts to leverage pension plan holdings to engage in shareholder proxy voting activism.
In the letters, Foxx writes:“In recent years, unions have engaged in significant shareholder proxy voting activities by leveraging their significant pension plan holdings. In light of recent high-profile proxy votes pushed by unions, the Committee on Education and the Workforce (Committee) is investigating shareholder activism activities that involve assets held by union pension plans, the impact on the value of the pension plan investments, and the expenses incurred by the plans in pursuit of these activities. As part of this investigation, the Committee is making this inquiry to understand the practice of proxy voting by your union.”
Foxx continues:“The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides that a fiduciary, such as one who manages the assets of a pension plan, shall discharge his or her duties ‘for the exclusive purpose of (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries, and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan.’ Given that some shareholder activism may not increase investment returns and may impose expenses on a plan, the Committee is seeking to understand these practices.”
Foxx concludes by requesting information, including:
Explain how your union engages in shareholder activism or other activities related to proxy voting or influencing shareholder meetings.
How many of the shareholder resolutions filed or supported by your union have received majority support at shareholder meetings?
How many staff members are engaged in activities related to shareholder activism, proxy voting, or other activities related to shareholder meetings?
Does your union have mechanisms in place to determine how much money is expended on its shareholder activism, proxy voting, or other activities to influence shareholder meetings? If so, please provide that figure.
Does your union have any mechanisms in place to calculate the financial benefits of its shareholder activism, proxy voting, or other activities to influence shareholder meetings? If so, please provide the results of that analysis.
What groups does your union partner with when engaging in shareholder activism, proxy voting, or other activities to influence shareholder meetings?
Has your union targeted shareholder proposals at companies it is attempting to organize?
Has your union used shareholder meetings as a means of encouraging companies to sign statements of neutrality or willingness to accept card check organizing?
When your union uses stock held as a union pension plan asset to engage in proxy voting, does your union consider the potential impact a proxy vote can have on financial health of the union’s pension plan? If so, please explain how.
What expenses has your union incurred in its shareholder activism activities? What is the source of funds for these expenses? Have pension plan assets been used to fund any of these expenses?
To read the letter to O’Brien, click here.
To read the letter to Shuler, click here.
To read the letter to Henry, click here.
