OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF ) Protest Decision 2025 ESD 24
CHRISTY O’CONNOR & )
SERGIO GARCIA ) Issued: December 30, 2025
Protestor. ) OES Case No. E-040-120725-GP
INTRODUCTION
In this protest Edward Reynoso challenges the eligibility of Christy O’Connor and Sergio Garcia, who were candidates for delegate or alternate delegate for Local Union 320 in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 2025-2026 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Election”). He asserts that both members failed to meet the 24-month continuous good standing requirement of Article VI, Section 1 of the Election Rules (“Rules”) and Article II, Section 4 of the IBT Constitution. Specifically, he alleges that they did not pay their dues in a timely manner for 24-consecutive months ending in the month before the month in which the nomination meeting was held.
BACKGROUND
Article VI, Section 1 of the Election Rules (“Rules”) requires the following to be eligible to run for Convention delegate or alternate delegate in the Election:
(1) Be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one's dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments;
(2) Be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination; and
(3) Be eligible to hold office if elected.
Similarly, Art. II, Section 4(a)(1) of the IBT Constitution provides that “[to] be eligible for election to any office in a Local Union, a member must be in continuous good standing in the Local Union in which he or she is a member and in which office is sought…for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said office…‘Continuous good standing’ means compliance with the provisions of Article X, Section 5, concerning the payment of dues for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months…” Art. X, Section 5(c) of the IBT Constitution requires that dues be paid on or before the last business day of the month in order to preserve good standing for that month. There is an exception for members on dues checkoff.
The nomination meeting for Local 320 took place on November 1, 2025. O’Connor and Garcia were nominated to run for delegate or alternate delegate in the Election at that time. Reynoso confirmed that he was present at the nomination meeting and aware that O’Connor and Garcia had been nominated as candidates in the Election. Ballots for the Election were subsequently mailed out on December 1, 2025. Reynoso filed this protest on December 8, 2025—over a month after the nomination meeting and a week after the ballots were already mailed. He stated that it was at this time that he investigated whether they were eligible to be nominated for delegate or alternate delegate in the Election. He provided TITAN records showing their dues’ payment histories in support his claim of ineligibility.
Pursuant to Article II, Section 16 of the Rules, the Election Supervisor has the obligation to certify the Election results. As part of that process, the Election Supervisor is responsible for determining and confirming, as a matter of course, the eligibility of each person elected as delegate/alternate delegate and the eligibility of each person who nominated or seconded his or her nomination. Because Local 320’s Election had begun well before this protest was filed, it was too late to effectuate an adequate remedy under the particular circumstances of this case before the Election concluded,[1] and because, as a matter of course, O’Connor and Garcia’s eligibility would have been addressed if they won the Election, we deferred the protest for post-election consideration. See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 2(f)(2); Mason, 2021 ESD 120 (June 4, 2021).
The ballot count occurred on December 29, 2025. O’Connor and Garcia lost the Election, and the protest does not allege any conduct that may have affected such an outcome. See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 3(b); see also Evans, 2006 ESD 165 (Mar. 27, 2006) (denying the protest as moot where candidate whose eligibility was in question lost the election); Montante, Post-9-LU317-PGH (May 15, 1996) (denying as moot voter eligibility allegations where he did not vote in the election).
Accordingly, we DENY this 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
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Christy O’Connor
Sergio Garcia
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Ronald Webne
Kelly Hogan
kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com
[1] We note that pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules, pre-election protests including those “regarding eligibility of candidates, nominators and persons seconding nominations” are required to “be filed within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived[.]” Although this time limit is not “an absolute jurisdictional requirement in general protest cases,” past precedent shows that “little leeway” is given for late-filed eligibility protests, “given the strict deadlines under which posting requirements, ballot printing and mailing schedules must be met.” Daly et al. 2011 EAD 141 (Feb. 6, 2001), aff’d 2001 EAM 30 (citing Murdoch, E123 (March 18, 1996) (protest held untimely where filed three working days after protester knew of candidate’s nomination); Milne, E71 (January 31, 1996) (eligibility protest received four working days after protester knew of candidate’s nomination untimely); Mantucci, E-024-LU669-EOH (January 22, 1996) (protest filed three business days after protester knew of candidate’s nomination held untimely ); Lawrence, 2000 EAD 19 (September 8, 2000) (eligibility protest received four working days after the nomination meeting, which protestor was present at, was untimely). Reynoso stated that he did not become aware that O’Connor and Garcia might not be eligible until Sunday, December 5, 2025, when the votes for Local 320 officers’ election were counted. However, as noted above, Reynoso was at the nomination meeting on November 1st and aware that Garcia and O’Connor had been nominated as candidates in the Delegate Election at that time. Because Reynoso filed this protest 37 days after the Local 320 nomination meeting, it was likely untimely. See Johnson, E-078-LU2000-EOH (Feb. 6, 1996) (denying the protest as untimely where the protestor reasonably should have become aware of the candidate’s nomination more than two working days before filing the protest). We do not, however, decide whether the instant protest was timely filed. Nor do we decide whether the protest, if treated as a pre-election protest, is moot because of the events occurring after the Local 320 nomination meeting, such as the mailing of the ballots. Since we treat this protest as a post-election protest and deny it for the reasons stated above, neither of those issues required resolution.