Protest Decisions

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2025 ESD 7 (“ESD 7”) was issued on October 9, 2025 (OES Case Nos. P-004-080625-AT; P-007-082625-AT) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).   ESD 7 addresses two pre-election protests, one filed by Dwayne Johnson against Brian Peyton and one filed by Brian Peyton against James Wright. Mr. Johnson’s protest alleged that Mr. Peyton, President and Principal Officer of Local 322, impermissibly retaliated against him for engaging in protected political activity in violation of Article VII, Section 12(g) of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).  Mr. Peyton’s protest, in turn, alleged that Mr. Wright, President and Principal Officer of Local 822, took certain actions to interfere with and retaliate against Mr. Peyton in violation of the Rules.[1] 

             On October 9th, the Election Supervisor granted Mr. Johnson’s protest and denied Mr. Peyton’s protest.  On October 13th, Mr. Peyton appealed both decisions.  On October 14th, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for October 21, 2025.  On October 20, 2025, the OES and Mr. Johnson submitted supplemental written arguments in support of their respective positions.            

A hearing by video conference was held on October 21, 2025.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Kelly Hogan and Jack Childers on behalf of the OES; Brian Peyton and his counsel, Jason Veny; Dwayne Johnson and his counsel, Ed Gleason; David Suetholz and Clement Tsao, on behalf of the IBT; and Johnnie Sawyer, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 822.

For the reasons set forth below, the Election Supervisor’s determinations granting Mr. Johnson’s protest and denying Mr. Peyton’s protest are AFFIRMED.  However, certain provisions of the remedy issued by the Election Supervisor to address the violations are not proportional and are VACATED. 

Background

Mr. Peyton is the President and Principal Officer of Local 322.  Mr. Johnson previously worked as an executive officer in Mr. Peyton’s administration, serving as both the local’s Secretary-Treasurer and its Director of Organizing.  During his tenure as an officer, Mr. Johnson led Local 322’s attempts to organize workers at Genesis Logistics, a DHL-affiliated transportation company, and had been working on that effort for approximately nine months before his resignation in August 2025. 

On July 31, 2025, while still an officer for the local, Mr. Johnson informed Mr. Peyton that he planned to campaign on behalf of the Teamsters United 2026 slate at a UPS facility.  According to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Peyton became angry and ordered him not to campaign for the slate and stated he was “tired of his shit.”  Mr. Johnson campaigned anyway and, on August 1, 2025, joined other Teamster members to collect signatures on behalf of the slate.

On August 3, 2025, shortly after Mr. Johnson engaged in the campaign activity, members of Local 322’s Executive Board, including Mr. Peyton and Mr. Johnson, held a Zoom meeting with the Genesis workers who were attempting to organize.  The meeting was scheduled to discuss the ongoing strategy because negotiations had begun to stall over various economic considerations, and the group was debating whether it should strike.  Even though Mr. Johnson had been leading the effort on behalf of Local 322, Mr. Peyton informed all of the participants, without warning or prior discussion, that he would be taking over the organizing effort from Mr. Johnson and that the workers should report to him going forward.  Prior to this call, Mr. Peyton had little to no direct involvement in the organizing effort.

That same day, Mr. Johnson resigned his position at Local 322 by email, stating, in part, that “after today’s zoom call it all became pretty clear that I don’t belong on your team any longer.”  The next day, on August 4, 2025, Mr. Johnson clarified that he was only resigning from his full-time position and would continue to serve as Local 322’s Secretary-Treasurer until the end of his term. 

Believing that he was still the local’s Secretary-Treasurer, Mr. Johnson issued routine checks to the Genesis workers to compensate them for time spent participating in the organizing effort while they took time off from their jobs.  Mr. Peyton disputed whether Mr. Johnson still had the authority to issue the checks given his resignation and  voided the checks.  Mr. Peyton also informed Mr. Johnson’s employer, UPS, that he was no longer an officer and that his leave for union business had ended.  Based upon these actions, Mr. Johnson claims that Mr. Peyton retaliated against him for campaigning on behalf of the Teamster United 2026 slate.

On August 11, 2025, given the various disputes over whether Mr. Johnson was still an officer as well as conflicting strategies over the Genesis organizing effort since his resignation, IBT General President O’Brien appointed Mr. Wright, President of Local 822, as his personal representative at Local 322.[2]  Mr. Wright’s duties and responsibilities as the personal representative were mainly limited to overseeing the Genesis organizing campaign.  However, the appointment also required Local 322 to notify Mr. Wright in advance of all union meetings and he  was responsible for reviewing all local union matters requiring Local 322 Executive Board approval.  In that capacity, following his appointment, Mr. Wright requested certain information from Mr. Peyton and took actions to support the Genesis organizing efforts.  Mr. Peyton asserts that Mr. Wright’s actions amounted to interference, retaliation and other related Rules violations.   

Discussion

1. Standard of Review and Applicable Rules

            It is well settled that the “standard of review of the Election Supervisor’s factual findings, including its credibility determinations, is abuse of discretion.” See Gonzalez, 2017 EAM 38 (January 24, 2017), citing, Taylor & Fabiano, 2011 EAM 34 (April 13, 2011); Eligibility of Swain, 2011 EAM 20 (February 22, 2011); Hailstone & Martinez, 2010 EAM 7 (September 14, 2010); see also Theurer, 2021 EAM 20 (September 24, 2021) and Johnson, 2021 EAM 15 (March 22, 2021).  The Election Supervisor abuses its discretion “when the facts found are clearly erroneous.”  Id.  Thus, the factual findings of the Election Supervisor “must be based on objective fact or observation” and should be “justified.”  See Johnson, 2021 EAM 15 (March 22, 2021), citing Richards, 00 EAM 4 (August 29, 2000).

The Rules provide that “retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.”  Article VII, Section 12(g).   In order to establish a retaliation claim, the evidence must demonstrate that “(1) the alleged victim engaged in activity protected under the Rules; (2) the charged party took adverse action against the alleged victim; and (3) the protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action.”  See Bundrandt, 2005 ESD 19 at 10 (October 23, 2005), aff’d, 05 EAM 4 (November 15, 2003) (quoting Cooper, 2005 ESD 8 (September 2, 2005).

Additionally, the Rules provide that if the “Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated…the Election Supervisor may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.”  Article XIII, Section 4.  Further, the Election Supervisor’s “discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy is broad and entitled to deference.”  Hailstone & Martinez, 10 EAM 7 (September 14, 2010). 

1. Retaliation against Johnson

Based on the thorough investigation conducted by the Election Supervisor, I find no reason to disturb the determination that Mr. Johnson was removed from his position as lead organizer for the Genesis organizing campaign because he participated in protected political activity.  It is clear from the record that Mr. Johnson planned to, and did, campaign on behalf of Teamsters United 2026 slate.  Following an extensive review of both testimonial and documentary evidence, the Election Supervisor also determined: (1) Mr. Peyton told Mr. Johnon that he should not campaign on the slate’s behalf, (2) Mr. Johnson did not comply with that directive and participated in protected activity, and (3) almost immediately after engaging in the campaign activity, Mr. Peyton publicly dismissed Mr. Johnson from the organizing effort that he had led for nine months. 

Mr. Peyton’s claims in response, that he removed Mr. Johnson for legitimate union business reasons, are unavailing.  After reviewing all of the relevant facts, the Election Supervisor determined that Mr. Peyton’s proffered justifications for removing Mr. Johnson had changed over time and were ultimately deemed not credible.

Accordingly, based on the record before me, the Election Supervisor was well within his discretion to determine that Mr. Johnson’s participation in protected activity was the motivating factor in his removal and the Election Supervisor’s factual determinations were based on adequately objective facts.

1. Retaliation and Interference against Peyton

The Election Supervisor properly denied Mr. Peyton’s protest that Mr. Wright retaliated against Mr. Peyton, interfered with the election process, or otherwise used union resources to campaign in violation of the Rules.  Mr. Peyton asserts that Mr. Wright’s actions and demands for information from Local 322 were motivated by Mr. Peyton’s refusal to support the Teamster United 2026 slate.  That claim is not consistent with the evidence.  Mr. Wright was appointed to serve as a personal representative of the General President to Local 322, which gave him the authority to ensure the proper functioning of the organizing campaign and make other relevant inquiries of the executive board. 

1. Timeliness of the OES Determination

Mr. Peyton asserts that the OES determination should be reversed because it was not issued within seven days.  See, Article XII, Article XIII, Section 2(f) of the Rules.  Given the complex facts involved in this matter, I do not find that the time it took the Election Supervisor to issue his decision prejudiced any of the parties involved in these protests.  Protests involving retaliation and related claims are often fact intensive inquiries that require the Election Supervisor to conduct multiple interviews and obtain and review several documents, including emails, phone logs, text messages and similar communications.  The evidence must then be examined and weighed.  Here, the Election Supervisor reviewed relevant information and conducted several interviews that ensured a fair process for all parties. 

1. Remedy Imposed

To remedy the retaliatory conduct here, ESD 7 contained the following order directing that Mr. Peyton:

1. Immediately cease and desist from further retaliation in violating the Rules.
2. Post the notice attached hereto on all bulletin boards under Local 322’s jurisdiction and its website, www.teamsterslocal322.org, until January 11, 2026, notifying members of Peyton’s violation of the Rules.
3. Pay a fine of $500 to be paid no later than five (5) days after the issuance of this decision. This fine is remedial in nature and is intended to emphasize the serious nature of the violation found herein and deter further violations of the Rules.
4. Immediately facilitate the reimbursement from Local 322 to Local 822 for the checks paid to Genesis employees for lost work time due to their participation in the organizing activities discussed above.
5. Submit an affidavit attesting to his compliance with the remedies ordered above to the OES within five days of the issuance of this decision.

ESD 7 AT 11.

Upon review of the record before me, I find that the first, second and fifth remedies are appropriate and serve to ensure a fair election process.  However, the third and fourth remedies imposed are not proportional and, therefore, those portions of ESD 7 are hereby VACATED.

First, although fines can be appropriate in certain circumstances and can serve to deter future violations of the Rules, a fine in this matter is not consistent with prior precedent and is not warranted.  See, In Re: Teamster Power, 2021 EAM 21 (October 14, 2021), affirming 2021 ESD 148 (September 28, 2021) ($2,500 fine where respondent was a serial offender of the Election Rules and failed to cooperate with investigators); see also In Re: O’Brien-Zuckerman 2021, 2020 EAM 3 (September 4, 2020), affirming 2020 ESD 14 (August 25, 2020) ($1,000 fine against respondent slate because it submitted a protest where there was no evidence that the claimed election rule violation had occurred.)  Retaliation is a serious violation, however, there is no allegation that Mr. Peyton obstructed the OES investigation, was uncooperative, is a serial offender of the Rules or otherwise abused the election process. 

The IBT’s appointment of a personal representative to oversee the organizing campaign should also be considered in assessing the appropriateness and extent of the remedy in this case.  Remedies to address dismissal or removal due to retaliation typically involve reinstatement or other measures to make the aggrieved party whole.  See, e.g., Brady et al., 2023 ESD 189 (May 25, 2023).  The appointment of a personal representative addresses Mr. Johnson’s removal from the organizing campaign and also serves as a deterrent from future misconduct.  Accordingly, given the facts and circumstances before me, a fine is not warranted.[3]      

Second, I find that ordering Local 322 to repay Local 822 for the expenses to cover the wages to the Genesis workers is squarely an internal union matter that falls outside the administration of the election system under the Final Order.  As noted at the October 21, 2025 hearing, Local 822 made its own decision to pay the Genesis workers.  While that payment is related to the issues in this protest, Mr. Peyton’s stated basis for voiding the checks was his belief that Mr. Johnson had resigned his position as Secretary-Treasurer.  It appears that the issue regarding Mr. Johnson’s status as an officer following his resignation was the subject of internal union disciplinary proceedings and, following a hearing, Joint Council 83 decided that issue.  See ESD 7 at 5.  Accordingly, Joint Council 83 is the proper IBT entity to determine whether Local 322 should be ordered to repay Local 822 based on the record already developed in the prior proceeding and, if so, the precise amount.

SO ORDERED

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         November 4, 2025
DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):