Protest Decisions

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2025 ESD 11 (“ESD 11”) was issued on October 22, 2025 (OES Case Nos. P-011-100125-GP; P-010-093025-GP) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).   ESD 11 addresses two pre-election protests filed by Jackson Kerr against Brian Aldes, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 320.  The first protest alleged that Mr. Aldes 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. Kerr’s second protest alleged that Mr. Aldes knowingly provided false information on Local 320’s Local Union Election Plan (“LEUP”), which was submitted to the OES.    

             On October 22nd, the Election Supervisor found Mr. Kerr’s protests were substantiated.  On October 24th, Mr. Aldes appealed those decisions.  On October 28th, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for November 3, 2025.  On October 31, 2025, the OES and Mr. Aldes submitted supplemental written arguments in support of their respective positions.            

A hearing by video conference was held on November 3, 2025.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Kelly Hogan, Jim Devine and the Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.) on behalf of the OES; Brian Aldes and his counsel, Kevin M. Beck on behalf of Mr. Aldes; and Will Bloom on behalf of Jackson Kerr.

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. Aldes is the Secretary-Treasurer of Local 320.  Mr. Kerr has been a business agent for the local for approximately three years and was hired to that position by Mr. Aldes.  On September 19, 2025, Kerr notified Aldes of his intent to run in both Local 320’s local officers’ election as a candidate for Secretary-Treasurer and as a delegate in the upcoming International Officer’s election.  While Mr. Aldes is retiring as Secretary-Treasurer at the end of this year, the record reflects that he is supporting Erik Skoog, the current President of Local 320 in the upcoming election.

Shortly after Mr. Kerr’s announcement of his intent to run, Aldes took the following actions:

(1)   Revoked Mr. Kerr’s access to Local 320’s Salesforce database, which is designed to store, manage and provide access to data that serves as a central repository of information.

(2)   Revoked Mr. Kerr’s access to his union credit card.

(3)   Revoked Mr. Kerr’s key card, which provided access to the Local 320 union hall and Local 320’s office after hours.

(4)   Revoked Mr. Kerr’s access to Local 320’s Google calendar, which allows staff to coordinate schedules with other business agents in order to properly perform their duties.

In addition, the protest alleged that Mr. Aldes did not provide accurate information when he submitted Local 320’s Election Plan.  Specifically, in submitting responses to the election plan questionnaire forms, the local is required to identify whether the “union, or any officer, business agent or shop steward maintains a list of member email addresses used to communicate union business.  Mr. Kerr responded “No” to that question when, in fact, the local does maintain a member email list. 

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 his 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 his 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).

With respect to the submission of Local Union Election Plans, the OES requests that each local union state whether “the local union, or any officer, business agent, or shop steward maintain[s] a list of member email addresses used to communicate union business.”  See Article II, Section 4(16) of the Rules.  The purpose of this request is to ensure that candidates for office have appropriate and fair access to the local union’s email list to distribute campaign literature, provided the local union maintains one.  See Article VII, Seciton 7(a)(4) of the Rules. 

Finally, 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 Kerr

Based on the investigation conducted by the OES, I find that Mr. Aldes improperly retaliated against Mr. Kerr for his participation in protected political activity.  After announcing his intent to run as a delegate, Mr. Kerr’s access to certain essential union information was revoked. Mr. Aldes claims that he revoked Kerr’s access for legitimate union business reasons.  However, the Election Supervisor properly determined that revoking Mr. Kerr’s access to the Salesforce database, and to the local’s office and the union hall and restricting his access to the Google calendar was motivated by Kerr’s campaign activity.  With respect to these items, the Election Supervisor appropriately determined that Mr. Aldes’ explanations for his actions were inconsistent with documentary and email evidence. 

However, I also find that Mr. Aldes did provide sufficient business justification to limit Mr. Kerr’s credit card access based on his failure to comply with the union’s reimbursement policies and procedures.  That said, Mr. Kerr’s compliance with these policies and procedures is apparently subject to an ongoing internal review and audit. 

1. Local 320’s Election Plan Retaliation

Based on the record, it is also clear that Mr. Aldes did not submit a proper response to the local election plan questionnaire form asking whether the “union, or any officer, business agent or shop steward maintains a list of member email addresses used to communicate union business.”  In his appeal to the Election Appeals Master, Mr. Kerr admitted that he erred in his response to that question after looking into the matter further.         

1. Remedy Imposed

To remedy the conduct here, ESD 11 contained the following order directing that Mr. Aldes shall:

1. Immediately cease and desist from further retaliation in violating the Rules.
2. 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.
3. Post the notice attached hereto on all bulletin boards under Local 320’s jurisdiction and its website, www.teamsterslocal320.org, within two (2) days of the issuance of this decision for 30 days notifying members of Aldes’s violation of the Rules.
4. Submit an accurate and corrected LUEP to the OES within two (2) days after the issuance of this decision and comply with Article VII, Section 7(a)(4) of the Rules.
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 11 AT 10.[1]

            In its submission to the Election Appeals Master, the OES further clarified the remedy in response to a request from Aldes as follows:

We clarify that the order for Aldes to cease from further retaliation includes his conduct found to be retaliatory and, therefore, Aldes is ordered to provide Kerr access to Salesforce, a key card, and union credit card, and not to take any further action in retaliation against Kerr.[2] Each business agent is left to decide for him or herself whether or not to make their Google calendar settings private.

OES Letter dated October 31, 2025 at 4.

Based on my review of the record and prior precedent, I find that the first, third, fourth and fifth remedies serve to ensure a fair election process.  I also find certain aspects of the Election Supervisor’s October 31st clarification letter appropriate, which confirms that Mr. Kerr’s access to his union credit card remains subject to any ongoing union review and audit.  However, the remedy imposing a fine is not proportional and, therefore, only that portion of ESD 11 is VACATED.  See Johnson, 2025 EAM 2 (November 4, 2025) at 7-8. 

SO ORDERED

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         November 18, 2025
DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):