OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: BATTISTE, MARIANNA ) Protest Decision 2025 ESD 23
)
) Issued: December 29, 2025
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-032-111425-WE
INTRODUCTION
On November 13, 2025, Teamsters Local 2010 hosted a membership meeting via Zoom. At that meeting, candidates for the Team Unity 2010 Slate and other union members displayed Team Unity 2010 Slate signs in their backgrounds and wore Team Unity t-shirts. Marianna Battiste, a Local 2010 member and candidate, attended that meeting. Following the meeting, Battiste filed this protest against Jason Rabinowitz and Local 2010 leadership, claiming that candidates and members improperly campaigned for Team Unity 2010 Slate during the meeting in violation of the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election Rules (“Rules”). We disagree.
BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2025, Teamsters Local 2010 hosted a membership meeting. At that meeting, candidates for the Team Unity 2010 Slate displayed background and donned t-shirts supporting their slate. The Team Unity 2010 Slate did not notify Local 2010 members that they would be publicly supporting their slate before the meeting.
Battiste filed a protest shortly after the meeting, claiming the backgrounds and t-shirts constituted campaign activity. And because the Team Unity 2010 Slate did not notify members at least five days before the campaign activity, Battiste claims that Team Unity 2010 violated Article VII, Section 5(a)(3).
Deborah Schaaf investigated Battiste’s claims. During her investigation, Ms. Schaaf spoke with Jason Rabinowitz, the Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 2010, who explained: “Teamsters Local 2010 has always recognized the unfettered right and practice of all Local Union members to exercise the rights under the LMRDA to wear any apparel and to set any Zoom background at any General Membership Meeting.” After her conversation with Rabinowitz, Ms. Schaaf tried to contact Battiste several times about the investigation. Battiste did not substantively respond to Ms. Schaaf’s repeated attempts, explaining that she had “lost complete trust in the process.”
ANALYSIS
Every member has a right to free expression within the organization. See Rules, Article XII (incorporating by reference 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2)). But that right to free expression is not absolute: unions may impose reasonable rules in the interest of maintaining order at meetings. See Petramale v. Local No. 17 of LIUNA, 736 F.2d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 1984). But “no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support.” Article VII, Section 12(d). Preexisting rights include “policies or practices of an employer during the 1990-1991 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election or thereafter.” Rules, Definitions, No. 36. To find such a past practice, “the evidence must show knowledge and toleration on the part of the employer. Evidence of unauthorized and unknown incidents is insufficient.” McDonald, P-1014 (October 15, 1996); Batham, 1996 EAM 225 (August 16, 1996) (requiring “concrete evidence that the employer representatives at the site knew about, and permitted,” the campaign activity alleged to constitute a past practice).
Under Article VII, Section 5(a)(3) of the Rules, if members or candidates campaign during a union meeting, “the Local Union shall notify all candidates for the positions for which such campaigning will be permitted of the opportunity to speak at least five (5) days prior to the meeting and shall divide the time equally between those candidates.” Campaign activity includes, for example, wearing campaign paraphernalia, such as t-shirts, hats or buttons, as well as displaying signs, such as zoom backgrounds. See Alvarado, 2010 ESD 28 at 3-4 (September 21, 2010).
Team Unity 2010 campaigned during the November 13, 2025, membership meeting. The parties do not dispute that members and candidates wore Team Unity 2010 t-shirts and displayed Team Unity 2010 backgrounds. That is campaign activity. See Alvarado, 2010 ESD 28 at 3-4 (September 21, 2010).
Team Unity 2010 says they violated no rules because no candidates – either from Team Unity 2010 or any other slate – were granted time to speak in support of their candidacy at the meeting. But Team Unity 2010 conflates campaigning with speaking. If members campaign, all candidates must be permitted to speak. See Article VII, Section 5(a)(3). But campaigning is not confined to only speaking. That is, wearing t-shirts and displaying logos – as Team Unity 2010 did during the meeting – constitutes campaigning. As such, other candidates should have been notified and provided the opportunity to speak.
Team Unity 2010 next says that the “clear practice” of the Local 2010 has been to permit members to display any background, including those that support and promote candidates or slates. Ms. Schaaf spoke with Rabinowitz, who explained: “Teamsters Local 2010 has always recognized the unfettered right and practice of all Local Union members to exercise the rights under the LMRDA to wear any apparel and to set any Zoom background at any General Membership Meeting.” We find Rabinowitz to be credible regarding Local 2010’s past practices. Ms. Schaaf then tried to contact Battiste, who never substantively responded. In fact, Battiste’s responses can reasonably interpreted as withdrawing her protest. Even so, Battiste proffered no evidence refuting the clear past practices of Local 2010. See Rules, Article XIII, Section 1 (it is the burden of the protestor to present evidence that a violation had occurred).
Accordingly, because the evidence supports a finding that Teamsters Local 2010 had a clear past practice of permitting campaign activity during zoom meetings – specifically, allowing members to display slate backgrounds and wear slate t-shirts – we deny the protest.
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 23
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Marianna Battiste
Laura Newman
Jason Rabinowitz
Richard Hooker
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Samuel Martin
Kelly Hogan