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


for the



IN RE: CHRISTOPHER TOOLE              )           Protest Decision 2016 ESD 272

            & JEFFERY SCAGLIA,                 )           Issued: July 15, 2016

                                                                        )           OES Case Nos. P-235-032116-NE

            Protestors.                                          )                       & P-244-032616-NE



            Christopher Toole, member and secretary-treasurer of Local Union 118, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2015-2016 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that members of the Clean Slate impermissibly used the process for mailing campaign literature to the local union membership in the delegates and alternate delegates election for a mailing after the election had concluded. 

Jeffery Scaglia, member of Local Union 118, filed a post-election protest alleging that Local Union 118 impermissibly used union resources to respond to the Clean Slate’s post-election mailing. 

            Election Supervisor representative Peter Marks investigated these protests.  They were consolidated for decision.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

            Local Union 118 was entitled to elect five delegates and two alternate delegates to the IBT convention.  Two slates competed in this election.  All members of the Clean Slate, on which protestor Scaglia was a delegate candidate, were elected.  Protestor Toole was a member of the slate of candidates that was not elected.  The tally of ballots was completed on February 27, 2016.

            During the week of March 14, 2016, some two weeks after the election, members of the Clean Slate sent a postcard to the Local Union 118 mailing list.  The postcard was distributed by Corso Printing, the mailhouse contracted for the purpose of mailing campaign literature during the delegates and alternate delegates election and was paid for by personal funds of the members of the Clean Slate.  The mailing list used was the one that had been provided to the mailhouse by the local union for use in the delegates election.  Investigation showed that the list was not provided to any member of the Clean Slate nor did any such member inspect or otherwise obtain access to any information on the list. 

            On the side of the postcard on which the addressee’s name and address, the bulk permit stamp, and the return address appeared was a headline in a larger font that stated:

thank you “we won!!!”

the clean slate

On the reverse of the postcard was the following text:

Hopefully, this Postcard will serve 2 purposes: First, we want to express our sincere thanks to all of you who supported the “Clean Slate” in our Local’s recent Delegates Election.  Without your support, our victory in this Election would not have been possible.  Second, we want the Membership to know that we will not rest until we reach our ultimate goal: Defeating our current corrupt and self serving Executive Board in our Local’s General election, which will be held this coming November.  Thank you again for your continued support!

Beneath this text were the names of all members of the Clean Slate.  Beneath their names was a photo of Local Union 118’s hall inscribed with this question: “When was the last time this place worked for you?”

            Article VII, Section 7 grants the right to each candidate to have campaign literature distributed using the local union’s membership list.  “Candidate” is defined as “any member who is actively seeking nomination or election for any Convention delegate or alternate delegate position or International officer position.”  Because the postcard mailing was done after the delegate election was over and all members of the Clean Slate were elected, none was a “candidate” under the Rules when the postcard was sent.  Accordingly, use of the mailing list provided pursuant to Article VII, Section 7 to send the Clean Slate postcard was unauthorized and in violation of that provision.

            As remedy for the violation, protestor Toole requested that the Clean Slate pay “the cost of printing and mailing of a direct response by the Executive Board of Local 118 to the entire membership so that we can answer their attacks.”  However, four days after Toole filed the protest, Local Union 118 president Paul Markwitz sent a letter to the local union membership responding to the postcard.  The letter was printed on local union letterhead and mailed in envelopes bearing the local union’s return address, was prepared by local union staff on time paid for by the union, with postage also paid by the local union.  The letter stated that it was sent in response to “a postcard to your home from a group identifying themselves as ‘the clean slate’.  The letter then made several claims.  It first contended that the individuals who sent the postcard impermissibly “gained access to your personal information,” in the next paragraph asserting that they wrongfully “obtain[ed] your personal information [to make] egregiously false statements to further a political agenda.”  As noted above, investigation showed that no member “obtained [the] personal information” of any local union member; instead, the postcard was sent using the mailhouse to which the local union had transmitted the membership list, and no member of the Clean Slate obtained the list. 

            Second, the letter touted the performance of the officers and business agents of Local Union 118, asserting that “this Executive Board … took a stand against corruption,” “operated your Local Union with the utmost professionalism and integrity,” attained “new financial stability,” and will “represent our Members with honesty and integrity!”

            We conclude that the local union response to the Clean Slate’s postcard constituted a parallel impermissible use of the local union membership list for a campaign purpose.  Both the local union’s letter and the Clean Slate’s postcard used the Local Union 118 mailing list in a way that was not authorized under and therefore violated Article VII, Section 7 of the Rules.  Both mailings were sent by members who were candidates in the delegates and alternate delegates election but no longer were.  The difference between the two mailings is that the Clean Slate’s postcard was done at the personal expense of the members of the slate, while the local union’s letter was done at union expense.

            Accordingly, we GRANT the Toole protest against the Clean Slate; we also GRANT the Scaglia protest against Local Union 118.



When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.”  Article XIII, Section 4.  In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.  “The Election Supervisor’s discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy is broad and is entitled to deference.”  Hailstone & Martinez, 10 EAM 7 (September 14, 2010). 

We order the Clean Slate and each of the persons who signed the slate declaration for that slate to cease and desist from using the membership list transmitted to the mailhouse for the delegates and alternate delegates election for any further communication. 

We order Local Union 118, its officers and agents to cease and desist from using the membership list of the local union to transmit campaign material at local union expense. 

We further order Paul Markwitz, who signed the letter that responded to the Clean Slate’s postcard, to reimburse Local Union 118 for the cost of printing, stuffing, and mailing the letter.  According to the IBT’s final delegate strength calculations released in March 2016, Local Union 118 had 3,993 members at the time the letter was sent.  The postage cost for each piece was 48.5 cents.  Adding in letterhead, envelopes, printing, and labor, we conclude the cost per piece was 90 cents, and the overall cost to the local union was $3,593.70.  We order Markwitz to reimburse that sum to Local Union 118 no later than Friday, July 22, 2016.  If Markwitz requests the other members of the slate on which he ran for delegate to contribute to the reimbursement he is required to make, we order each member of that slate to contribute an equal amount, rounded to the nearest dollar, to Markwitz’s obligation.  We order Markwitz to notify us of his compliance with this remedy by declaration under penalty of perjury no later than Tuesday, July 26, 2016.

Finally, we order Local Union 118 to post on all worksite bulletin boards under its jurisdiction the notice attached to this decision.  The notice posting shall be completed by Friday, July 22, 2016 and shall remain in place through and including Friday, September 2, 2016.  Local Union 118 shall notify us of its compliance with this remedy by declaration under penalty of perjury no later than Tuesday, July 26, 2016.

A remedial order of the Election Supervisor takes immediate effect unless stayed.

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision.  The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal.  Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:


Kathleen A. Roberts

Election Appeals Master


620 Eighth Avenue, 34th floor

New York, NY 10018


Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 375, Washington, D.C. 20036, all within the time prescribed above.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.


                                                                        Richard W. Mark

                                                                        Election Supervisor

cc:        Kathleen A. Roberts

            2016 ESD 272



Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001


David J. Hoffa

1701 K Street NW, Ste 350

Washington DC 20036


Ken Paff

Teamsters for a Democratic Union

P.O. Box 10128

Detroit, MI 48210-0128


Barbara Harvey

1394 E. Jefferson Avenue

Detroit, MI 48207


Teamsters United

315 Flatbush Avenue, #501

Brooklyn, NY 11217


Louie Nikolaidis

350 West 31st Street, Suite 40

New York, NY 10001


Julian Gonzales

350 West 31st Street, Suite 40

New York, NY 10001


David O’Brien Suetholz

515 Park Avenue

Louisville, KY 45202


Fred Zuckerman

P.O. Box 9493

Louisville, KY 40209


Teamsters Local Union 118

Paul Markwitz, President

130 Metro Park

Rochester, NY 14623

Michael J. Maynard, Vice-President


Chris Toole, Secretary-Treasurer


Al Hondorf, Recording Secretary


Jeff Sargent, Trustee


Tim Johnson, Trustee


Larry Thibault, Trustee

130 Metro Park

Rochester, NY 14623


Chris Camelio


Anthony Wells


Gary Rindfleisch


Jeff Scaglia


Ron Delcour


Michael Figliotti


David Baldwin


Peter Marks

116 Nagle St.

Harrisburg, PA 17104


Jeffrey Ellison

214 S. Main Street, Suite 212

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Office of the Election Supervisor

for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 375

Washington, D.C.  20036


844-428-8683 Toll Free

202-774-5526 Facsimile


Richard W. Mark

Election Supervisor




The Election Supervisor has found that members of the Clean Slate violated the Election Rules by sending a postcard at personal expense to Local Union 118 members after the conclusion of the delegates and alternate delegates election.  They did so by hiring the mailhouse designated by Local Union 118 to handle campaign mailings during the election; they violated the Rules by sending the mailing after they had won the election and were no longer candidates.  They never possessed the mailing list or obtained the personal information of the members.

The Election Supervisor has also found that Local Union 118 violated the Election Rules by sending a letter to Local Union 118 members in response to the Clean Slate’s postcard.  Just as with the postcard, the letter was sent after the election was over and when the members who had lost the election were no longer candidates.  However, the letter was sent at local union expense, compounding the violation. 

The Election Supervisor will not permit any violations of the Rules.  The Election Supervisor has ordered both the Clean Slate and Local Union 118 to cease and desist from further violations of this nature.  In addition, the Election Supervisor has ordered Paul Markwitz, who signed the letter, to reimburse Local Union 118 the sum of $3,593.70 for the cost of the letter; Markwitz may seek contribution to his reimbursement obligation from the other members of his delegates and alternate delegates slate

The Election Supervisor has issued this decision in Local Union 118 Delegates and Alternate Delegates, 2016 ESD 272 (July 15, 2016). You may read this decision at

            Any protest you have regarding your rights under the Rules or any conduct by any person or entity that violates the Rules should be filed with Richard W. Mark, 1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 375, Washington, D.C.  20036, telephone: 844-428-8683, fax: 202-774-5526, email:


This is an official notice prepared and approved by Richard W. Mark, Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.  It must remain posted on this bulletin board through

September 2, 2016 and must not be defaced or covered up.