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




2015-2016 EAM 11 (KAR)                                                                                                                                                               


Protest Decision 2016 ESD 94 (ESD 94), regarding a January 28, 2016 protest by Teamsters United, was issued on January 29, 2016 (OES Case No. P-130-012816-NE). The protest alleged that written nominations and seconds made in Local Union 553’s delegates and alternate delegates election were improperly rejected as untimely submitted.  Local Union 553 conducted its nominations meeting for the delegates and alternate delegates election on January 27, 2016.  The meeting was administered by Global Election Services (GES), the third-party election vendor Local 553 hired to administer the election.


GES filed an appeal of ESD 94 on February 2, 2016.   By Notice of Hearing sent to all distributees of ESD 94, a telephonic hearing was scheduled for February 26, 2016.  On February 17, 2016, the Election Supervisor submitted a written response to the appeal.  Additional submission were received from GES on February 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, 2016.  Additional submissions were received from the Election Supervisor on February 22, 24 and 25, 2016.  A submission from Barbara Harvey, Esq., on behalf of the TDU was received on February 24, 2016.


A telephonic hearing was held on February 26, 2016.  The following individuals attended the hearing:   Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., on behalf of the Election Supervisor (OES); Dave Reilly (OES); Paul Dever (OES); Marc Abrams (GES); Maralin Falik (GES); David Hoffa, Esq.; Barbara Harvey, Esq.; Julian Gonzalez, Esq.; Demos P. Demopoulos (Local 553); Victor Castellano (Local 553).


The protest at issue was sustained by the Election Supervisor, who found that the written nominations and seconds at issue were submitted timely.  GES does not challenge this determination.  Rather, GES challenges the conduct of the investigation of the protest by the Election Supervisor, as well as findings of fact and analysis set forth in ESD 94.  GES seeks an order directing that “wording” contained in ESD 94 be changed to reflect facts that GES asserts were omitted from ESD 94 relating to the role of an OES representative at the nominations meeting with respect to the rejection of the written nominations and seconds that are the subject of the protest.  The Election Supervisor contests the factual assertions made by GES that GES seeks to have incorporated into the Election Supervisor’s decision.





GES acknowledges that it does not seek to change the ultimate outcome of the decision of the Election Supervisor.  Under these circumstances, the Election Appeals Master has no jurisdiction or authority to address the concerns raised by GES with respect to the OES investigation, or to direct the Election Supervisor to modify his findings, which are entitled to deference.  See Jackson, 06 EAM 26 (March 24, 2006).


The appeal by GES is accordingly DENIED, and ESD 94 is AFFIRMED.












DATED:  March 2, 2016