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


for the



IN RE: O’BRIEN-ZUCKERMAN 2021,   )           Protest Decision 2021 ESD 152

                                                                       )           Issued: October 5, 2021

Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-178-100121-NA



O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021, a slate of candidates for International office, 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 9 local unions violated the Rules by failing to produce worksite lists to the slate upon request.


Election Supervisor representatives Deborah Schaaf, Michael Miller, and Jim Devine investigated this protest.


Findings of Fact and Analysis


In O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021, 2021 ESD 144 (September 21, 2021), we decided the slate’s protest against 31 local unions, noting that Article VII, Section 1(b) grants each nominated candidate for International office, among others, “the right to a current list of all sites, with corresponding addresses, where any and all Union members work.”  By rule, local union are required to produce the requested lists within 5 days of receipt. 


            Here, the protestor established that it made written request for worksite lists to the 9 local union named in this protest by email and fax in early July 2021.  When follow-up requests produced no response, this protest was filed. 


            Our investigators contacted the local unions identified in the protest, informing them the protest had been filed, further informing them of their obligation to produce the lists upon request, verifying that the email addresses and fax numbers the protestor used to make the requests were accurate, and seeking compliance with valid requests.


            Six of the nine local unions identified as respondents in the protest transmitted their worksite lists to the protestor after receiving the original and follow-up requests and being notified of the protest.  The explanations our investigators received from the local unions for failing to comply with the slate’s requests ranged from inadvertence to ignorance of their obligations to produce the lists.  The local unions that supplied the lists by email or US mail after receiving the protest are as follows: 87, 223, 431, 752, 1699, and 1932.  Each local union was instructed of the importance of timely response to valid requests for its worksite list.  With respect to these local unions, we deem the protest RESOLVED.


            Local Union 542 presented proof that it produced its worksite list on August 4, 2021, weeks before the protest was filed; the protestor has now acknowledged receipt.  Local Union 690 established that it never received the protestor’s request because the fax number the protestor used was incorrect; nonetheless, it produced the worksite list in response to the protest.  With respect to these local unions, we DENY the protest, finding no violation of the Rules.


            Local Union 305 presented proof that it sent its list to the protestor by certified mail, correctly addressed, on July 23, 2021, but the package was returned “unclaimed” on August 20, 2021.  It asserts it has complied with its obligation and will send the list again only upon receiving a new request from the protestor.  We acknowledge the local union’s vexation at sending the list by a means intended to establish proof of receipt and then having the list returned unclaimed.  However, this process also proved that the protestor never received the list.  Accordingly, the purpose of the rule being frustrated by the lack of delivery, we direct Local Union 305 to email the list to the protestor, a process which will give the local union proof that the list was sent and received.  The local union must comply with this directive no later than Thursday, October 7, 2021, by sending the list to, with copy to  We will deem the protest against Local Union 305 RESOLVED upon proof of its compliance with this directive.


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 152








Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters


Edward Gleason


Patrick Szymanski


Will Bloom


Tom Geoghegan


Rob Colone


Barbara Harvey


Fred Zuckerman


Ken Paff

Teamsters for a Democratic Union


Scott Jenkins

Local Unions 87, 223, 305, 431, 542, 690, 752, 1699, and 1932,


Deborah Schaaf


Michael Miller


Jim Devine


Jeffrey Ellison