Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

 

 

IN RE: KERR, JACKSON                )           Protest Decision 2025 ESD 11

                                                )

                                                            )           Issued: Oct. 22, 2025

                                                            )

Protestor.                                             )           OES Case No. P-011-100125-GP &

                                                            )           P-010-093025-GP                                               
                                                            )

                                                            )

INTRODUCTION

Jackson Kerr, a candidate for delegate in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 2026 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Election”) and for Secretary-Treasurer in Local 320’s officer election filed two protests against Brian Aldes, the Secretary-Treasurer of Local 320, pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the Election (“Rules”). In P-010-093025-GP (“P-010”), Kerr alleges that Aldes knowingly provided false information on Local 320’s Local Union Election Plan (“LEUP”) submitted to the Office of the Election Supervisor. In P-011-100125-GP (“P-011”), Kerr alleges that Aldes retaliated against him after Kerr informed Aldes that he is running for delegate in the Election and Secretary Treasurer of Local 320 in the Local officer election (“Local Election”).^[1]

Patrick Plummer and Jim Devine of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated these protests.

BACKGROUND

Brian Aldes has been Secretary Treasurer of Local 320 since 2012. He is retiring from that position in December and is not seeking re-election or running for delegate or alternate. Aldes supports Erik Skoog, current President of Local 320, running for Secretary-Treasurer against Kerr in the Local Election.[2] Kerr, who has been a business agent for about three years, was hired by Aldes.

 

On Friday, September 19, 2025, Kerr notified Aldes of his candidacy in the upcoming election for delegate in the Election and candidacy for Secretary-Treasurer in the upcoming Local Election. He also requested a copy of Local 320’s LUEP, provided notice of his intent to distribute campaign literature via mail and email in connection with his candidacy in the Local Election,[3] and asked for additional information in connection with his distribution of campaign literature. A copy of this correspondence is below:

Aldes confirmed that he received this correspondence on September 19, 2025.

 

The following Monday, September 22, 2025, Aldes called Kerr to a meeting. At the meeting, he referred Kerr to the OES website (ibtvote.org) for a copy of the LUEP and the Rules for the Election and provided Kerr with a copy of the nominations notice for the Local Election. Aldes acknowledged that, although it is not his responsibility to advise Kerr on the Rules governing the Election, he directed Kerr to the ibtvote.org website and he answered questions posed by Kerr. During this conversation, Kerr stated that Aldes then told him that he was prohibited from engaging in any campaign activity except when on vacation, including hours before and after work. Aldes stated that he told Kerr that campaigning incidental to work and during evenings was permissible, but that he needed to use personal leave if he is “flat-out” campaigning.

During that meeting, Aldes also revoked Kerr’s access to the Local 320 Salesforce Database (designed to store, manage and provide access to data acting as a central repository of information) and, according to Kerr, questioned him about phone calls that Local 320 members had reportedly complained to Aldes about receiving in support of Kerr’s slate, Teamsters Action. Aldes stated that he revoked Kerr’s access to Salesforce due to receiving complaints from members who had been receiving unsolicited campaign texts, emails and phone calls from Kerr about his campaign. Based on these complaints, Aldes believed Kerr was improperly collecting and using data and revoked his access in order to maintain the integrity of the members’ information. The OES investigator asked for the names and contact information of members who made such complaints to Aldes and Aldes has not provided any additional information.

Aldes stated that when he asked Kerr about where or how Kerr collected this member information, Aldes stated that Kerr refused to answer. Kerr disputes this. He claims that he told Aldes that he had not used any phone lists or local union resources to advance his campaign. Aldes acknowledged that as a business agent, Kerr would have access to a subset of such information relating to his assigned bargaining units. Aldes stated that, following the meeting with Kerr he directed local union administrative staff to conduct an investigation, but because no other business agents were the subject of member complaints, no other business agent’s access to the Salesforce Database was revoked.

During this meeting Aldes also revoked Kerr’s union credit card. Kerr stated that Aldes told him that the reason his credit card was revoked was because Kerr had been tardy in submitting his credit card receipts. Kerr admitted that a failure to turn in receipts timely was an ongoing issue for him but stated that he was confused as to why Aldes was revoking his privileges at the meeting. Kerr is unaware of any other officers or staff who have had their credit cards revoked for similar conduct.

Aldes stated that he revoked Kerr’s credit card in response to an audit conducted by the IBT over the summer. According to Aldes, as a result of the audit, Local 320 learned that on at least four occasions Kerr had violated Local 320’s policy on automobile rental and related auto allowance expenditures. Kerr acknowledged the summer 2025 audit findings and stated that he met with Aldes to discuss the violations and that Aldes did not suggest that Kerr would be disciplined. Aldes stated after the audit, he conducted a further investigation of receipts submitted by Kerr. It is unclear when this audit and/or further investigation began.^[4] The OES investigator requested documentary evidence to corroborate these statements and to establish the timeline of these events and again, no documents were provided. Aldes stated that after September 22, 2025, he discovered that Kerr had charged his Local 320 credit card for a “mass texting platform-program” named, MailChimp, without permission from the communication director, or otherwise, to do so. Aldes stated that he ordered Kerr to close the MailChimp account.

Two days later, on September 24, 2025, Aldes revoked Kerr’s key card providing access to the Local 320 union hall and Local 320’s office after hours. Aldes stated that he took this action in response to Kerr’s refusal on September 22nd to answer Aldes’s query about where he obtained information about Local 320’s members phone numbers and emails and that his intent was only to prohibit Kerr from access during after work hours. He stated that he is in the process of changing the building code that enables union employees to access the building itself because he learned from union members that Kerr was providing building access to others using the code.

According to Kerr, Google calendars are routinely used by union staff in performing their duties and to coordinate schedules. Aldes disputes this. Prior to September 19, 2025, Kerr could view the master calendar and calendars of other business agents. On or about September 30, 2025, he realized that he no longer had access to those Google calendars. Individuals can change the settings for their Google account including access to calendars. Independent investigation shows that the domain administrator of the Google workspace account may set organization-wide rules for sharing calendars including turning the calendar service off/on or restricting sharing settings. However, Local 320’s administrator assistant, Suzanne Slawson, the administrator on Local 320’s Google business account, stated her capacity is limited to setting up new hires, exiting employees, and resetting passwords for individuals.[5] She cannot (and has never been able to) administratively change other account users calendar settings. Aldes also denied being able to change the setting on other users Google accounts.[6]

Aldes initially denied directing any union employees to change their Google settings to deny Kerr access. He implied that to the extent others took this action, they did so on their own because of data concerns. During a subsequent interview, Aldes stated that he instructed union staff to restrict access to their Google calendars. Aldes provided an email Skoog sent, per Aldes’s request, to all of Local 320’s business agents except Kerr on September 22, 2025, advising them to make their calendars private due to “a potential breach of our stewards contact roster.” Kerr was not included on this email and was not notified of these changes at this time. Aldes stated that he did not want Kerr to be notified because Aldes did not want him to change his settings so Aldes could continue to see Kerr’s calendar because he was having work issues with Kerr.[7] Aldes confirmed that after this email, he was no longer able to see any business agents’ calendars except Kerr’s.[8] The administrator stated that she had been able to see all the business agents’ calendars until about a month ago when Aldes asked them to make their calendars personal.

On September 30, 2025, while Kerr was on scheduled vacation, Aldes emailed Kerr at 12:07 pm informing him that he had a deadline of 4:00 pm to turn in all credit card receipts. Kerr stated that he had not been provided any prior notice of this deadline and because he was on vacation, he did not have access to the office where the credit card receipt forms are stored. Kerr believes that this was an attempt to have some pretextual basis to discipline Kerr in retaliation for his candidacy. Aldes did not provide an explanation to this allegation.

Local 320’s LUEP was submitted and approved by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”). In response to question 12(e), asking, “Does the local union, or any officer, business agent, or shop steward maintain a list of member email addresses used to communicate union business?” Local 320 answered, “No.” Aldes acknowledged that he provided this answer to Question 12(e) and submitted the LUEP. There is no dispute that Local 320 has communicated with members via email distribution. Aldes stated that Local 320 does not have a well-maintained email list of local union members and characterized its information as “incomplete, rarely used, and difficult to manage.” He stated that the information Local 320 has is a mix of personal and employer email addresses. Aldes acknowledged that pursuant to state law, public employers^[9] provide to Local 320 email addresses for members who are publicly employed (e.g., University of Minnesota). Aldes explained that there are three e-databases Local 320 uses: (1) a list maintained through a Salsa Labs account;^[10] (2) a list maintained through MailChimp;^[11] (3) email addresses connected to public employees represented by Local 320 (referenced above). Aldes stated that Local 320 has not provided email addresses to any candidates and, thus, it has not discriminated against Kerr by not providing them. Aldes stated privacy concerns over providing the email list. Kerr alleges that Aldes violated the Rules by providing false information on the LUEP and interfering with the right of candidates to distribute campaign literature via email.

ANALYSIS

 

P-011 – Retaliation

           

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).

 

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).

 

Kerr alleges that in retaliation for his candidacy as delegate in the Election, Aldes: 1) instructed and advised Kerr of his responsibility to adhere to the Rules; 2) revoked Kerr’s access to a local union database; 3) revoked Kerr’s ability to use a local union credit card; 4) revoked Kerr’s office key card; 5) directed other members of Local 320 to remove Kerr’s access to Google calendars; 6) set an unreasonable deadline for Kerr to submit credit card receipts. There is no dispute that just days after Kerr informed Aldes of his candidacy, Aldes instructed and advised Kerr of his responsibility to adhere to the Rules and revoked Kerr’s access to Salesforce, his union credit card, and office key card, and Aldes demanded submission of credit card receipts for reimbursement without prior notice. We find that Aldes violated the Rules for reasons that follow.

 

The evidence shows that Aldes took all of the above actions against Kerr shortly after he announced his candidacy. Specifically, Aldes first took adverse action against Kerr three days after his announcement and continued to take action against him over the following 11 days. We cannot find that Aldes would have taken such action absent Kerr’s candidacy based on the information before us. Although Aldes stated that Kerr violated union policy on automobile rental and related auto allowance expenditures, it appears that this discovery occurred over the summer (i.e., weeks or months before Aldes revoked Kerr’s privileges) and there is no evidence that Aldes disciplined or planned to discipline Kerr post audit until September 22nd.^[12] It also appears that Aldes provided Kerr with a different reason for his decision to revoke Kerr’s credit card than the reason Aldes provided to our investigator. Aldes’s belief that Kerr improperly obtained and used member information from Salesforce appears to be based on speculation absent evidence showing the basis for this accusation and we were unable to corroborate the any member complaints. Aldes stated that this alleged breach triggered his decision to revoke Kerr’s key card access. All of these actions, taken together in such close proximity to Kerr’s notice to Aldes of candidacy for delegate further supports that such conduct was retaliation.[13] See Lytle, 2011 ESD 282 (June 23, 2011), aff’d, 11 EAM 51 (June 30, 2011) (finding prohibited retaliation for business agent’s candidacy in the delegates election based specific facts of that case, including the timing of the confiscation and termination). Moreover, despite requests, we have not been provided information to corroborate, and are, therefore, not persuaded by Aldes’s stated independent justification for taking these actions against Kerr. See Strzezewski Decision on Remand II, (Aug. 27, 1996) (discussing the Appeals Masters decision noting that that the investigation contained no corroboration for the local’s claims that it would have taken such adverse action anyways).

Accordingly, based on the information before us, we GRANT P-011 except as to Kerr’s allegations that Aldes violated the Rules regarding statements about permissible/prohibited campaigning for the Election during the September 22^nd meeting. We do not find that Kerr met his burden to present evidence showing that such a violation occurred. In contrast to the other actions described above (which Aldes admitted to but disputed his motivation for), the parties dispute the specific statements made during the September 22nd conversation and there is no corroborating evidence that Aldes made such statements to Kerr.

 

P-010 – Email List

 

Article II, Section 4(16) provides that all local unions “shall submit” a local union election plan to the OES with certain information including, “any other information or material the Election Supervisor deems appropriate.” The Election Supervisor requests each local union to 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.” Upon approval, the Election Supervisor instructs the submitting party, in this case, Aldes, to “check the Plan Summary to ensure that all the information is accurate and that the Local is prepared to implement it as stated.” Sept. 11, 2025, Letter Approving Local 320’s LUEP (https://www.ibtvote.org/forms/ElectionPlan/ViewPlan/27169 ).

 

Article VII, Section 7(a)(4) of the Rules states:

 

The Union shall honor reasonable requests by candidates for distribution of literature through electronic mail. Requests for the distribution of literature by electronic mail shall be governed by the same rules applicable to the distribution of literature by mail under this Section. If any list or other compilation of electronic mail addresses maintained by the Union is under-inclusive (in that it does not include electronic mail addresses for every member of the Union), the Union shall advise the requesting candidate of the total number of electronic mail addresses on the list and let the candidate decide if he or she still wants to use the list. If the list or other compilation of electronic mail addresses maintained by the Union is or may be over-inclusive (in that it includes or may include addresses of non-members), the Union shall distribute the literature to every address on the list unless the Union can demonstrate that non-member addresses can be readily and accurately identified and segregated from member addresses. Campaign literature distributed through electronic mail shall clearly state that it is campaign literature, the contents of which are not endorsed by the Union. The manner of distribution of candidate literature by electronic mail shall be subject to such Advisory or further guidelines as may be established by the Election Supervisor for the purposes of facilitating distribution of literature by electronic mail, protecting the confidentiality of electronic mail addresses, and protecting the privacy of electronic mail recipients.

 

Candidates may request to have their campaign literature distributed via e-mail to the local union’s e-mail list, provided the local union has one. We find that Local 320 has a “list or other compilation of electronic mail addresses maintained by the Union” and, therefore, shall distribute campaign literature on behalf of a candidate upon reasonable request in accordance with the Rules.[14] We note that even to the extent this list may not be up to date or a complete list of all members, the Rules specifically account for “any list or other compilation of electronic mail addresses maintained by the Union” that are “under-inclusive” or “over-inclusive.” Thus, in furtherance of the purpose of the Rules to ensure a free and fair election process, we find that even to the extent there are limitations on Local 320’s email list, it cannot deny maintaining a list but shall disclose any such limitations to the requesting candidate. To be clear, the Rules do not require that a union to provide the list or compilation of e-mail addresses it maintains but shall honor reasonable requests by candidates to distribute the material in order to protect the confidentiality of e-mail addresses. We find the failure to identify the existence of a local union email list in the LUEP despite having such list to be a violation of the Rules. See Sandberg, et al., 2011 ESD 192 (Mar. 28, 2011) (noting that “initially fail[ing] to identify the existence of a local union email list in the plan even though the local union had such a list” was one of a number of violations of the Rules).

 

Accordingly, we GRANT P-010.

REMEDY[15]

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

• Immediately cease and desist from further retaliation in 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.
• Post the notice attached hereto on all bulletin boards under Local 320’s jurisdiction and its website, https://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.
• 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.
• Submit an affidavit attesting to his compliance with the remedies ordered above to the OES within five days of the issuance of this decision.

A decision of the Election Supervisor takes immediate effect unless stayed. O’Brien-Zuckerman, 2020 ESD 1 June 23, 2020); Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996).

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 11

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

Jackson Kerr

jskerr6@gmail.com

 

Brian Aldes

Baldes@teamsterslocal320.org

 

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

 

Pat Plummer

patplummer62@hotmail.com

 

Jim Devine

Jim.devine@gmail.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 320 MEMBERS PER ORDER OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

The Rules protect the right of all International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”) members to run for delegate, alternate delegate or International office in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 2026 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Election”). Retaliation or threat of retaliation against any member for exercising any right or protected conduct under the Rules is expressly prohibited. The Election Supervisor has determined that Brian Aldes violated the Rules including Article VII, Section 12(g) by retaliating against Jackson Kerr. Specifically, Aldes revoked Kerr’s access to Salesforce, his union credit card, office key card during off hours, demanded submission of reimbursement forms without prior notice, and directed all Business Agents except for Kerr to limit access to their Google calendars in retaliation for Kerr’s announcement as a candidate for delegate in the Election. As a remedy, the Election Supervisor has ordered Aldes to 1) immediately cease and desist from any further retaliation against Kerr in violation the Rules; 2) pay a fine; and 3) post this notice for 30 days on all bulletin boards under Local 320’s jurisdiction and Local 320’s homepage. The fine is remedial in natures, intended to emphasize the serious nature of the violation and deter further violations of the Rules.

 

Additionally, under Article VII, Section 7(a)(4) candidates may request to have their campaign literature distributed via e-mail to the local union’s e-mail list if the local union has one. All local unions are required to submit a local union election plan to the OES providing certain information including, a statement confirming whether or not the local union, or any officer, business agent, or shop steward maintains a list or other compilation of member email addresses used to communicate union business. See Rules, Article II, Section 4. All information on a local union election plan must be accurate. It is the responsibility of the local union to review all information set forth therein and confirm that it is accurate. The Election Supervisor determined that Aldes violated the Rules by failing to accurately state that Local 320 maintains a member email list on its LUEP. As a remedy of this violation, the Election Supervisor ordered Aldes to 1) submit an accurate and corrected LUEP and honor reasonable requests by candidates to distribute campaign literature as set forth in the Rules; and 2) post this notice for 30 days on all bulletin boards under Local 320’s jurisdiction and Local 320’s homepage.

 

This notice serves as a reminder that failure to accurately disclose whether or not the local union maintains a list of member email addresses constitutes a violation of the Rules. After the date of the issuance in Kerr, 2025 ESD 11 (Oct. 22, 2025), any member and/or local found to be in violation will be subject to, at a minimum, a $500 fine. If the Election Supervisor determines that the violation was intentional or deliberate, the member and/or local in violation may be subject to an increased fine in addition to any other remedy the Election Supervisor determines is appropriate in the circumstances.

 

The Election Supervisor issued this decision in Kerr, 2025 ESD 11 (Oct. 22, 2025), which can be found at: https://www.ibtvote.org/Protest-Decisions/esd2025/2025esd0011.

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 for 30 days, and must not be defaced or covered up.