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


for the



IN RE: JOHN GREEN and                         )           Protest Decision 2021 ESD 69

      KEVIN BAUGHMAN                            )           Issued: March 4, 2021

                                                            )           OES Case No. P-079-021721-FW

Protestors.                                          )



John Green and Kevin Baughman, members of Local Union 952, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that Grant Maertz and Anthony Seiler violated the Rules by campaigning to members who were working.


Election Supervisor representative Michael Miller  investigated this protest.


Findings of Fact


            Local Union 952 will elect 12 delegates and 5 alternate delegates to the IBT convention.  A full slate, a partial slate, and an independent candidate are competing in that election.  Protestor Green is a member of the Members First slate; protestor Baughman supports that slate.  Respondents Maertz and Seiler are members of the Solidarity slate.


            The protest alleged that on February 16, 2021, Maertz, Seiler, and a third person campaigned to members who were working.  Protestor Baughman told our investigator that, on that date, he was driving a truck for his employer, Albertson’s.  Late in the day, he pulled his truck up to the entrance of Albertson’s yard in Irvine CA.  He was stopped at the gate by Seiler, who approached the front of Baughman’s truck and then stepped up on the step at the driver’s door. Once there, Seiler gave Baughman a Solidarity slate handbill and asked him to support the slate. Baughman asked Seiler who the lead candidate on the slate was, and when Seiler replied that it was Maertz, Baughman said he was not interested.  Seiler stepped down and Baughman drove on.  After Baughman pulled into the yard, he observed the campaign activity for several minutes because he thought that campaigning to members who were working was not appropriate.  Baughman took photos of the activity with his phone, which he provided to our investigator.  Baughman noted that Seiler and Maertz worked together in approaching and stopping each truck to handbill and speaking with the drivers entering the loading area.


            Protestor Green observed the same activity.  Green told our investigator he saw Maertz, Seiler, and a third person Green believed to be Wayne Addison campaigning to drivers who were on the clock, stopping the vehicles as the drivers entered and exited the facility, and handbilling and speaking to each driver.  Green stated that in many cases, the campaigners got up on the step of the truck to personally engage with the drivers while they were at the wheel.  Green said that drivers had to stop whether they wished to or not, since Maertz, Seiler, and Addison halted each truck by standing in front of it, and then moving to the driver’s door.


            Green told our investigator he had heard that campaigners for the Solidarity slate had campaigned in a similar manner at the CVS warehouse in La Habra CA but did not witness it himself.


            Maertz acknowledged to our investigator that he campaigned at the truck entrance at Albertson’s Irvine distribution center on Tuesday, February 16 for “about an hour to an hour and a half” in the late afternoon.  He said that he was there with slate members Seiler and Addison, stopping truck drivers as they came and went from the facility to offer them a handbill and solicit their support for the slate.  He acknowledged that he had engaged in similar activity at the CVS La Habra distribution center earlier on the same day.  He stated that he and the other two campaigners handbilled some 20 to 30 drivers.  When our investigator explained that campaigning to drivers while they were driving in and out of the facility, on the clock, violated the Rules as an impermissible use of employer resources, Maertz then denied he was at the gate stopping trucks but rather was in the employer parking lot speaking only to members who were off the clock and walking to or from their personal vehicles.  


Maertz elaborated that only Seiler, who is an Albertson’s steward, was at the gate, but that Seiler was engaged principally in speaking with drivers about what Maertz said were “contract issues” and upcoming “available bids” for jobs, which Maertz said was part of Seiler’s responsibility as steward.  When pressed by our investigator, Maertz conceded that he and Addison were at the gate as well, with Maertz and Addison merely supporting Seiler as Seiler spoke to drivers about job bids and contract issues.  As part of that support, Maertz said they gave drivers campaign handbills and encouraged them to vote for the Solidarity slate in the delegates and alternate delegates election.  


Seiler told our investigator that he, Maertz, and Addison campaigned in the same manner at the truck gate at CVS La Habra distribution center in the morning of February 16 and at the Albertson’s Irvine distribution center that same afternoon.  None of the three is a steward at CVS.  Seiler said their decision to campaign at Albertson’s was timely because driver job bids and changes to the company’s pension plan were in the offing.  Seiler, as an Albertson’s steward, felt that he and the Solidarity slate could have some positive political impact by engaging drivers and employees about these topics as they came and went from the driveway gate.  Seiler stated that as the truckers entered and left through the gate, he offered a campaign handbill to anyone who rolled down his window to take it.  If a driver asked a question, Seiler engaged him in a brief discussion.  Seiler stated there was little talk or interest in the pension issue the campaigners discussed but more interest in the upcoming driver job bids.  Seiler estimated that he and the other campaigners were at the Albertson’s truck gate for a half hour, a markedly different estimate than the hour to hour and a half that Maertz reported to our investigator.  Seiler said that he mentioned that ballots were being mailed on February 19 a couple of times, but he said he tried to give a Solidarity slate handbill to each driver who rolled down his window and stopped to speak with them.  Seiler said that Maertz and Addison engaged some employees in the yard who were coming and going on foot.  Seiler conceded to our investigator that the drivers he spoke with were on the clock and that his engagement with them was an improper use of employer resources, but he thought that the interaction was minimal and not abusive of company time or resources.  Seiler stated that he and the other campaigners did the same thing at the CVS truck gate in La Habra earlier in the day.


Addison confirmed to our investigator that he, Maertz and Seiler campaigned at the truck gate at Albertson’s Irvine on February 16.  He stated that he offered a handbill to any truck driver coming and going who rolled down his window and seemed open to talking with them.  Addison qualified his statement and said that Seiler (and not Maertz or Addison) did most of this activity, speaking with the drivers about upcoming bids, information on possible changes to drivers’ pensions, and also offering them handbills.  Addison stated that the talk about driver position bids and pensions was a normal exchange Seiler, as their steward, would have with the drivers, and the drivers would, according to Addison, “obviously be very interested” in those details.  Addison stated that the Solidarity slate campaigners had campaigned at the Albertson’s Irvine truck gate among arriving and departing drivers previously.  Addison admitted to our investigator that he understood that campaigning to the drivers while on the clock could be an improper use of company resources, but he insisted that Seiler did most of the talking and focused on bids and pensions, not the election.


Photos provided during the investigation showed campaigners distributing handbills to drivers entering and exiting the truck gate.  The handbills urged members to vote for the Solidarity slate.




Campaign activity directed to employees on work status is prohibited. Hoffa-Hall 2016, 2015 ESD 6 (July 7, 2015).  Berg & Corrigan, 2001 EAD 267 (March 26, 2001), aff’d01 EAM 61 (April 23, 2001).   Campaigning to members while they are behind the wheels of their trucks, on employer-paid time, driving into and out of the facility as part of their jobs, violates the Rules. 


We do not accept the campaigners’ claim that Seiler was performing steward duties, the others were merely supporting him in that effort, and the handbilling was incidental to performance of the steward function.  To the contrary, we conclude that the campaigners’ purpose and function at the truck gates at Albertson’s and CVS was to campaign, and that Seiler used the pending job bid as a talking point to introduce his main topic, which was to seek electoral support for the slate.


Maertz, Seiler, and Addison contend that their activity did not impede the drivers from their appointed tasks.  Their argument alludes to the “incidental” exception embodied in Article VII, Section 12(a).  That exception does not apply here.  Article VII, Section 12(a) states explicitly that “[n]o candidate or member may campaign during his/her working hours,” but the next sentence permits campaigning incidental to work.  The “incidental” exception is to ensure that as members interact normally during the course of their on-the-job responsibilities, that interaction may include campaigning.  George, P490 (April 4, 1996).  See also, Benson, Post 67 (April 16, 1991) (“use of a CB radio [for campaigning] while otherwise working . . . is exactly the type of normal ‘shop talk’ the rule on incidental campaigning was meant to [cover]”); Myers, 2016 ESD 119 (February 25, 2016).  Because “incidental” campaigning is an exception to the prohibition barring candidates and members from campaigning during their paid work time, it follows that the exception is effective also only where the campaigners are on the clock, which the campaigners here were not.  Instead, they were on personal time and went to a location where members were working for the purpose of campaigning to them while they were working.  This activity violates the Rules.   


Accordingly, we GRANT the protest.





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 Maertz, Seiler, Addison, the Solidarity slate, and all slate supporters to cease and desist from campaigning to members who are on employer-paid time.  Further violation of this rule may result in remedial fines assessed against the offending campaigners and/or the slate.


            A remedial order of the Election Supervisor is immediately effective, unless stayed.  Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996).


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.  Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i).  All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor.  Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:


Barbara Jones

Election Appeals Master


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, all within the time prescribed above.  Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.


                                                                  Richard W. Mark

                                                                  Election Supervisor

cc:        Barbara Jones

            2021 ESD 69









Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters


Edward Gleason


Patrick Szymanski


Will Bloom


Tom Geoghegan


Rob Colone


Barbara Harvey


Kevin Moore


F.C. “Chris” Silvera


Fred Zuckerman


Ken Paff

Teamsters for a Democratic Union

John Green


Kevin Baughman


Grant Maertz


Anthony Seiler


Wayne Addison


Teamsters Local Union 952


Michael Miller


Deborah Schaaf


Jeffrey Ellison