Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

 

 

IN RE: JOHNSON, DWAYNE          )           Protest Decision 2025 ESD 7

                                                )

                                                            )           Issued: Oct. 9, 2025

                                                            )

Protestor.                                             )           OES Case No. P-004-080625-AT

                                                            )           P-007-082625-AT
                                                            )

                                                            )

 

INTRODUCTION

            Edward Gleason Jr., legal counsel on behalf of Dwayne Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 322, filed a protest against Brian Peyton, the President and Principal Officer of Local 322 and the Executive Board Members of Local 322 pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the Election (“Rules”). The protest alleged that Peyton retaliated against Johnson for exercising his rights to campaign, P-004-080625-AT (“P-004”), in support of the Teamsters United 2026 slate for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 2026 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Election”) and that the Executive Board condoned it.

Jason Veny, legal counsel for Peyton, subsequently filed a protest on behalf of Peyton against James Wright, the Principal Officer of Local 822 and candidate for International Vice President at large on the Teamsters United 2026 slate. Peyton alleged that Wright took certain actions to interfere with, intimidate and retaliate against Peyton in violation of Article VII, Section 12(a) and Article XI, Sections 1(b)(2) and (3) of the Rules, P-007-082625-AT (“P-007”).

These protests arise out of related conduct and were consolidated for investigation and decision.

The Office of the Election Supervisor’s Joe Childers investigated the protests. The investigation included interviews[1] of Johnson, Gleason, Peyton with his attorney, James Wright, Brandon Bavosa, chief steward at all UPS facilities for Local 322, Eric Ragland, business agent at UPS for Local 322, Johnny Sawyer, a member of Local 822 and Package Division Coordinator for the IBT, and Jim Smith, President of Local 592[2], as well as review of all materials submitted by interested parties and persons interviewed in connection to this protest (including numerous witness statements) and those identified by the investigator’s own investigation.

BACKGROUND

On July 31, 2025, Johnson told Peyton that he was taking time off for part of the following day, August 1, 2025, to collect signatures in the parking lot at a UPS facility in support of the Teamsters United 2026 slate. Johnson stated that Peyton became angry, stated that he was “tired of this shit” and told him that he was not to do anything. When told that Wright and others would also be collecting signatures, according to Johnson, Peyton declared that no one was to campaign[3] and he would be “writing a letter.” Peyton supported the OZ slate in 2021 and in March 2022, after the election, was named Director of Human Relations and Diversity at the IBT headquarters. He resigned about six months later. Peyton stated that his resignation was voluntary. Wright and Sawyer state that Peyton resigned under pressure because of performance and other issues. Peyton disagrees with some of General President O’Brien’s politics and decided to stay neutral for this Election, even though earlier this year, he stated that he contributed $60 to the Teamsters United 2026 slate after feeling pressure to do so from Sawyer and Johnson. Johnson (who contributed $2,000), and Sawyer have solicited contributions for the Teamsters United 2026 slate. Ragland corroborated that they have pressured Peyton about contributions. Peyton denied telling Johnson not to campaign but admits that he told him that he should not submit to any pressures coming from the IBT to campaign for the Teamsters United 2026 slate. There were no witnesses to this conversation but, later that same day, Johnson called Sawyer, told him about the conversation he had with Peyton, and expressed concerns about showing up to campaign as planned the next day including, fear of losing his job. Ultimately, Johnson decided to campaign the following morning, spending about an hour collecting accreditation signatures. Wright stated he was surprised Johnson showed up because of Peyton’s comments.

 

Johnson was Director of Organizing for Local 322, an appointed position, and had been the lead organizer for Local 322’s efforts to organize workers at Genesis for about nine months. Peyton had little involvement in these efforts. By the end of June, negotiations were moving slowly and a strike authorization vote held by the Genesis bargaining committee. Afterwards, negotiations improved slightly but then broke down between July 28-30^th during the economic discussion. As a result, the Genesis bargaining committee, Johnson, and Peyton agreed a strike was necessary. Negotiations with the company were scheduled for August 5th and 6^th. A strike was scheduled for 2:00 PM on August 5^th if the negotiations did not progress.

 

On August 3, 2025—two days after Johnson campaigned for the Teamsters United 2026 slate— Peyton announced on a Zoom call with Genesis members and the Executive Board that he would be taking over the Genesis campaign from Johnson and that the Genesis bargaining unit members were to report directly to him. Peyton did not provide a reason for taking over on the call and did not have a conversation with Johnson about this prior to the Zoom call. This also came as a surprise to members of the Executive Board present on the call, Brandon Bavosa and Eric Ragland, and to the Genesis workers on the call. Peyton claims that he took over the Genesis campaign because he was worried about Johnson after learning that his father was sick. He stated that he told Johnson he should take time off to spend with his father. Johnson stated that he told Peyton about his father’s health issues at least a month before this and that his father has had ongoing health issues over the past year, which Peyton had been aware of.[4] No one else interviewed stated that Johnson appeared overwhelmed or that they had any concerns about Johnson’s ability to work despite what was going on in his personal life.

 

After the Zoom meeting on August 3, 2025, Johnson emailed Peyton, cc’ing members of the Executive Board the following:

 

The time has come for me to resign from my position at Teamsters Local 322. I have been contemplating this decision for some time now, but after today’s zoom call it all became pretty clear that I don’t belong on your team any longer. I will be spending the next 4 weeks burning my remaining PTO by spending time with my father before he passes and I regret not seeing him.

 

I will be returning all of the Locals property prior to returning to UPS.

 

I will be connecting everyone with the Genesis team to ensure a smooth transition.

 

(emphasis added).

 

At 10:39 AM on August 4, 2025, Johnson sent a follow up email stating the following:

 

Point of clarification on my resignation, my original resignation did not specify that I’m only resigning from my full-time position. I will continue to serve on the executive board until the end of my term.

 

Pursuant to Local 322’s bylaws,[5] the officers of Local 322 (President, Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer, Recording Secretary and three Trustees) constitute the Executive Board. Johnson’s August 4^th email made clear that he was not resigning as Secretary-Treasurer.[6] Peyton admitted that he received this email, but that Johnson could not “undo” his resignation. Notwithstanding Johnson’s August 4^th email, Peyton subsequently notified UPS management that Johnson’s leave of absence for union business had ended. UPS management informed Peyton that it had received a letter from Wright stating the contrary—that Johnson remained on leave. Peyton stated that this undermined his authority and governance as President of Local 322.

 

Peyton cancelled the scheduled Genesis strike. He stated that he cancelled the strike after being informed by a company negotiator that if the employees proceeded as planned, the company would transfer work to a rival delivery company. According to Johnson, the Genesis employee members of the organizing committee were not happy that Peyton took over the negotiations process out of the blue and even more frustrated that he cancelled the strike. This was confirmed by written notarized statements submitted by two Genesis employee members of the organizing committee who stated that Peyton should be removed or subjected to disciplinary action calling Peyton’s behavior “destructive.”

 

Johnson subsequently issued checks to Genesis employees for lost work time due to their participation in the organizing activities discussed above but Peyton voided them. Peyton also voided Johnson’s paycheck. Peyton stated that he voided the checks to Genesis members because Johnson did not have the authority to sign the checks since he resigned as Secretary-Treasurer. He further stated that there was a delay on issuing replacement checks due to his office manager being out on vacation. When Wright learned that Peyton had voided the checks, he issued payment to Genesis members through Local 822 and submitted a request for reimbursement from Local 822 to Local 322. Peyton disputed that Local 822 had authority to make these payments; however, on August 11, 2025, General President Sean O’Brien appointed Wright as his personal representative to Local 322 to oversee the first contract of Genesis and the organizing campaign pursuant to Article VI, Section 1(f) of the IBT Constitution. Genesis members stated that Johnson consistently issued the paychecks to the Genesis Organizing Committee members the week following their activities, the same as when their regular paychecks would be received. Due to Peyton’s actions, members had to wait weeks before receiving the checks.

 

On August 13, 2025, nine days after Johnson clarified that he had not resigned as Secretary-Treasurer, Peyton sent a letter to Johnson “confirming” his resignation as Secretary-Treasurer and demanding he return Local 322 property. This was Peyton’s first response to Johnson’s resignation. Peyton also changed Local 322’s locks and passwords preventing Johnson from performing his duties as Secretary-Treasurer.

 

On August 20, 2025, Wright sent an email from his personal email account attaching an unsigned letter not on IBT letterhead requesting confirmation about an Executive Board meeting scheduled for the following day. In the letter he stated that he was the personal representative of General President O’Brien and demanded notice of the date, time and place of Executive Board meetings. Wright stated that this letter was drafted with Justin Keating, counsel to 822, and because Wright was not in the office at the time this letter was sent, he did not sign it. Wright stated that he has used this email with Peyton in the past. Peyton stated that Wright has sent him emails through personal email accounts before but not the one that Wright sent the August 20^th email from.

 

General President O’Brien appointed Wright as his personal representative for Local 322. This appointment is reflected in a letter dated August 11, 2025; however, this letter was not sent to Peyton until after the August 20, 2025, email discussed above. The letter states the following:

 

Pursuant to the authority vested in this office by Article VI, Section 1(f) of the International Constitution, I am today appointing you as my Personal Representative to Teamsters Local Union No. 322 (“Local Union”), located in Richmond. Specifically, you will oversee the first contract of Genesis and the organizing campaign. You will continue to act in this capacity until such time as a decision is rendered that a Personal Representative is no longer necessary. This is not a Trusteeship. The officials of the Local Union will remain responsible, at this time, for providing representational services to the Local Union members. However, the Local Union shall notify you, in advance, of all meetings, and you will be responsible for reviewing all Local Union matters requiring Executive Board approval.

 

On September 4, 2025, Keating sent an email to Genesis members stating that Johnson would again be the point of contact and Peyton “will not be involved in these negotiations at all anymore.” Peyton forwarded this email to IBT legal counsel.

 

As a result of Peyton’s conduct described above, Johnson filed P-004 alleging that his conduct and the Executive Board’s complicity was retaliation in violation of the Rules. In addition to filing P-004, Johnson also filed internal union charges against Peyton and Local 322 Executive Board members with Joint Council 822. In September 2025, Joint Council 83 issued its decision after a hearing and testimony of various individuals finding that 1) Peyton violated Article XIX, Section 7(b)(10) of the IBT Constitution for retaliating against Johnson for supporting the Teamsters United 2026 slate; 2) Peyton, as Principal Officer, has the authority to appoint and remove non-elected positions at Local 322, therefore, Johnson’s request to be reinstated to Director of Organizing was denied; 3) Johnson’s resignation emails were not acknowledged by Local 322 until August 13, 2025, and Johnson did not resign as Secretary-Treasurer; and 4) denied the charges against the Executive Board.

 

After Johnson filed P-004, Peyton filed P-007 alleging that Wright’s communications to UPS management about Johnson remaining on leave in direct contrast with Peyton’s statements, his August 20, 2025 letter to the Executive Board excluding Peyton about being appointed a personal representative of the General President, his issuance of payment to the Genesis Organizing Committee by Local 822, and his request for an update on Local 322’s contract negotiations with Compass Behavioral Health Group violated Article VII, Section 12(a) protecting members’ rights to campaign free from intimidation and coercion and Article XI, Sections 1(b)(2) and (3) prohibiting use of union resources or positions for campaign advantage.

 

ANALYSIS

P-004

 

Article VII, Section 12(g) prohibits “[r]etaliation 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[.]” Retaliation prohibited under the Rules is based on the right of all members “to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.” Article VII, Section 12(a). Campaign activity is “a personal right of members, and the exercise of that right cannot be interfered with by labor organizations or employers, including the IBT [or a local union] as an employer. Pope, 2000 EAD 39 (October 17, 2000), aff’d in relevant part, 2000 EAM 11 (November 14, 2000).

 

A History of the Rules shows that the protection against retaliation did not appear explicitly in the 1991 election, the first under the Consent Order. Nonetheless, the Election Officer there found “implicit” in the right to participate in campaign activity “the right to remain free from adverse action” by the union in retaliation for support given to any International Union officer candidate. DelGallo, P-1042-LU294-PGH (November 14, 1991). The provision explicitly barring retaliation, now found in Article VII, Section 12(g) (set forth above), was added to the Rules for the 1996 election cycle. “[T]he Election Rules are broader than federal labor law and prohibit any retaliation relating to the exercise of members’ rights under the Rules...” Wsol, 95 EAM 17 (October 10, 1995), affirming Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995). Judge Conboy’s opinion in Wsol rested on decisions of the Election Officer and Independent Administrator from the 1991 election. In Parisi, P-1095-LU294-PGH (December 2, 1991), the Election Officer observed that, “[n]ormally, an appointed labor organization official may be removed at will, even if the only basis for removal is the desire of the appointing officer to have ‘his own people’ around him,” citing Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (1982). However, the Election Officer and Independent Administrator held in the 1991 cycle that removal of even an appointed IBT member from his position with the union based on that member’s activities with respect to the 1991 IBT International Union officer election violated the Rules. As applied to protestor Parisi, his “removal as the appointed Sergeant-at-Arms would violate the Rules if his removal was based upon his activities on behalf of nominated IBT General President candidate Ron Carey.” See also Cremen, P-425-LU311-MID (March 11, 1991), aff’d, 91 Elec App 101 (March 19, 1991) (removal from steward position would violate Rules if motivated by delegate candidacy); DelGallo, supra (removal from sergeant-at-arms position would violate Rules if motivated by Rules-protected activity).

 

To establish a violation of the Rules by retaliation, “the evidence must demonstrate that 1) the alleged victim engaged in activity protected by 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.” Bundrant, 2005 ESD 19 at 10 (October 25, 2005), aff’d, 05 EAM 4 (November 15, 2005) (quoting Cooper, 2005 ESD 8 (September 2, 2005). The Election Supervisor will not find retaliation, however, if he concludes that the union officer or entity would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protestor’s protected conduct. Gilmartin, P32 (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 EAM 75; see also Leal, P51 (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 30; Wsol, P95 (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 17. Adverse action does not require discharge, and retaliation may arise in other contexts. See e.g., Berg, 2000 EAD 22 (September 21, 2000) (employer’s threats to call the police and remove protestor from gathering accreditation petitions on public sidewalk adjacent to the employer’s facility was a violation of the provision prohibiting retaliation); Ostrach, 2000 EAD 57 (December 6, 2000) (threat to withhold support for a local union because its chief officer was running on the Leedham slate was a violation of the anti-retaliation provisions); Hull, 2000 EAD 71 (December 21, 2000) (local officer’s demand on union letterhead that opposition delegate candidates cease their criticism of him was a violation of the anti-retaliation provision); Bundrant, 2005 ESD 19 (October 25, 2005) (the IBT’s attempt to transfer members from one local to several others was violation of the anti-retaliation provision).

 

We find that all three prongs are met here, and that Peyton retaliated against Johnson in violation of the Rules. Johnson’s support of the Teamsters United 2026 slate is protected activity and was a motivating factor in Peyton’s sudden and unilateral decision to strip Johnson of his role and responsibilities as organizer of the Genesis campaign. We make this determination based on a thorough review of all of the facts before us including the timing of events and our assessment of the credibility of witnesses.

 

On July 31, 2025, Johnson informed Peyton that he was campaigning for the Teamsters United 2026 slate and Peyton instructed Johnson not to. As a result of that conversation, Johnson informed Sawyer about this conversation and raised his concerns about what Peyton might do if Johnson followed through with campaigning. We find Johnson’s statements about his conversation with Peyton on July 31^st to be credible and bolstered by the telephone call between Sawyer and him which occurred contemporaneously with Peyton’s comments and instruction not to campaign for the Teamsters United 2026 slate. In fact, Johnson stated his concern that Peyton would retaliate against him based on his earlier statements—a fear that unfortunately became true less than two days later.

 

Johnson understood that Peyton could not order him not to campaign and chose to campaign the following morning despite Peyton’s comments. Peyton knew that despite their conversation, Johnson campaigned that day. Two days later, Peyton, who had only been minimally involved in the Genesis campaign, suddenly and abruptly, without notice to Johnson, the Executive Board, or Genesis bargaining unit members, removed Johnson from his position as lead organizer for the Genesis campaign—a campaign that Johnson had been working on for ninth months—at a pivotal time two days before a planned strike. Compare Lytle (confiscation of laptop on the first business day following announcing delegate candidacy) with Chip Roth, 2011 ESD 296 (July 2, 2011) (noting that the timing of the decision not to renew the contract was closely linked to the end of the current six-month contract which is “relatively distant in time from the [protected activity].”).

 

We do not find Peyton’s claims that he removed Johnson as the lead organizer for the Genesis campaign out of his concern for Johnson’s mental state and personal life to be credible[7] or that he would have taken this action but for Johnson’s protected activity a few days before. Contrast Chip Roth, 2011 ESD 296 (July 2, 2011) (finding no retaliation because the individuals who voted to take the adverse action “articulated a legitimate reason for the decision, which was to rebalance the work assignments of business agents and organizers” and protestor failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet his burden of showing that the articulated reason was pretextual or would not have occurred in the absence of the protected activity). Not only had Peyton been aware of Johnson’s father’s ongoing health concerns well before the Zoom call, but Peyton’s conduct is inconsistent with his stated explanation. For example, if Peyton had removed Johnson from this role out of professional courtesy or personal concern for Johnson, one would expect that he would have first had a conversation with Johnson about it and not blindsided him while on a Zoom call with the Executive Board and Genesis members. Instead, Peyton made this decision on his own, surprising not only Johnson but also the Executive Board and Genesis members. This suggests that Peyton made this rash decision shortly before the call and not as a result of Johnson’s personal matters. Moreover, Peyton’s refusal to accept that Johnson had only resigned from his role as Director of Organizing, as well as his voiding of checks to Genesis members, further shows Peyton’s true intentions.[8] We find that Peyton’s stated reason for stripping Johnson of his role and responsibilities is pretext for retaliating against him for his protected activity.[9]

 

We find that taking all of the facts together, Peyton took adverse action against Johnson in retaliation of his support of the Teamsters United 2026 slate. Accordingly, we GRANT P-004 as to the allegations against Peyton. We deny the protest to the extent that Johnson alleges that the Executive Board retaliated against him.

P-007

 

Peyton alleges that Wright violated Article VII, Section 12(a) and Article XI, Sections 1(b)(2) and (3) of the Rules. Article VII, Section 12(a) states:

 

All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to distribute campaign literature (and otherwise to solicit support for a member’s candidacy) outside a meeting hall before, during and after a Union meeting, regardless of Union policy, rule or practice.

 

Where any candidate or other member of the Union exercises or attempts to exercise any right under the Rules to campaign for or against the candidacy of any person for the position of delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer, members of the Union shall have the reciprocal right to hear or otherwise receive such campaign advocacy.

 

Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) prohibits employer contributions and use of employer resources for campaigning. Specifically:

 

No employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object, or foreseeable effect of the contribution is influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. These prohibitions are not limited to employers that have contracts with the Union; they extend to every employer, regardless of the nature of the business and include, but are not limited to, any political action organization that employs any staff; any nonprofit organization, such as a church or civic group that employs any staff; and any law firm or professional organization that employs any staff. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer and include contributions or use of employer stationery, equipment, facilities, and personnel.

 

Article XI, Section 1(b)(3) states:

 

No labor organization, including but not limited to the International Union, Local Unions and all other subordinate Union bodies, whether or not an employer, may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate, except as permitted by subparagraphs (5) and (6) below. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by a labor organization and include contributions and use of the organization’s stationary, equipment, facilities, and personnel.

 

Peyton asserts that Wright would not have taken any of his actions set forth above if he had donated $2,000 instead of $60 to the Teamsters United 2026 slate and claims that Wright did not have the authority to take such actions further evidencing a violation of the Rules. We find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Wright violated the Rules.

To the extent Peyton suggests that Wright’s conduct was retaliation or intimidation, we disagree.[10] As set forth above, the evidence must demonstrate that Peyton engaged in activity protected by the Rules and that Wright took adverse action against him motivated by Peyton’s protected activity in order to be retaliation. Peyton’s choice not to make further contribution to the Teamsters United 2026 slate is protected activity. However, Peyton stated that he had been solicited for contributions beginning as early as March 2025. Thus, even to the extent Peyton showed any adverse action was taken against him in August, there is no evidence of any adverse action taken against him for four months despite being solicited for additional contribution and him not to do so. In short, we find no causal connection between any protected activity and Wright’s actions.

Moreover, looking at the “purpose, object or foreseeable effect” of Wright’s conduct in light of the union’s legitimate activities and functions, we find that Wright’s actions were legitimate, union business taken in his official union capacity pursuant to the authority appointed to him under the IBT Constitution, which we defer to.[11] See Faulkner, P-293 (Mar. 25, 1996) (“Where the IBT or an affiliate is accused of making a campaign contribution through its activities, the ‘purpose, object or foreseeable effect’ of the conduct must be examined in light of the union’s legitimate activities and functions.”). We find no abuse of authority here and find that the “foreseeable effect” of Wright’s actions including the issuance of payment to Genesis members was merely “a possible or incidental byproduct” insufficient to establish a violation. See id. (“To find a violation, the ‘foreseeable effect’ of the expenditure must be more direct, as opposed to a possible or incidental byproduct.”). Accordingly, we do not find that Wright’s conduct constituted an improper campaign contribution or use of employer or union funds. Accordingly, we DENY P-007.

REMEDY

Based on our findings set forth above, we order Peyton to:

• Immediately cease and desist from further retaliation in violating the Rules.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Submit an affidavit attesting to his compliance with the remedies ordered above to the OES within five days of the issuance of this decision.

 

APPELLATE RIGHTS

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:

 

Election Appeals Master

Barbara Jones

Election Appeals Master

IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com

 

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.  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. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

                                                                        Timothy S. Hillman

                                                                        Election Supervisor

cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com

2025 ESD 7

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

Dwayne Johnson

dsjohnson1982@yahoo.com

 

Jason Veny

jveny@murphypllc.com

 

James Wright

teamsters822@gmail.com

 

Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,

ed@hsglawgroup.com

 

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@gmail.com

 

David Suetholz

DSuetholz@teamster.org

 

Will Bloom

wbloom@dsgchicago.com

 

Ken Paff

ken@tdu.org

 

Thomas Kokalas

thomas.kokalas@bracewell.com

 

Timothy S. Hillman

thillman@ibtvote.org

 

Paul Dever

pdever@ibtvote.org

 

Joe Childers

joe@jchilderslaw.com

 

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

1750 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

844-428-8683 TOLL FREE

FAX: 202-807-1074

electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org

www.ibtvote.org

Hon. Timothy S. Hillman

Election Supervisor

 

NOTICE TO ALL LOCAL UNION 322 MEMBERS PER ORDER OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

The Rules protect the right of all International Brotherhood of Teamsters members to run for delegate, alternate delegate or International office and to support candidates of their own choosing for those offices. The Rules specifically prohibit any retaliation or threat of retaliation against any member for exercising any right or protected conduct under the Rules, including your right to choose to support or not support any candidate.

The Election Supervisor has determined that Brian Peyton violated the Rules including Article VII, Section 12(g) by retaliating against Dwyane Johnson. Specifically, Peyton removed Johnson from his role and responsibilities as lead organizer in connection with for Local 322’s efforts to organize workers at Genesis in retaliation for Johnson exercising his right to campaign and support a candidate or slate of candidates, which is protected activity under the Rules. As a remedy for Peyton’s violation of the Rules, the Election Supervisor has ordered him to 1) immediately cease and desist from any further retaliation against Johnson or any other member in violation the Rules; 2) pay a fine; 3) facilitate the reimbursement from Local 322 to Local 822 for payment to Genesis employees for lost work time due to their participation in the organizing activities; and 4) post this notice until January 11, 2026, on all bulletin boards under Local 322’s jurisdiction and Local 322’s homepage. The fine is remedial in nature and is intended to emphasize the serious nature of the violation and deter further violations of the Rules.

The Election Supervisor issued this decision in Johnson, 2025 ESD 7 (Oct. 9, 2025), which can be found at: https://www.ibtvote.org/Protest-Decisions/esd2025/2025esd007.

Any protest you have regarding your rights under the Election Rules or any conduct by any person or entity that violates the Election Rules should be filed with the Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.), 1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006, telephone: 844-428-8683, fax: 202-807-1074, email: electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org.

This is an official notice of the Office of the Election Supervisor. It must remain posted until January 11, 2026, and must not be defaced or covered up.