OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: JOHNSON, DWAYNE ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 27
) Issued: January 7, 2026
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-031-111325
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 2025-2026 International Union Delegate and Officer Election Rules (“Rules”), Edward Gleason Jr., legal counsel on behalf of Dwayne Johnson, filed a protest against Brian Peyton, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 322, for failure to comply with the Election Supervisor’s order issued in Johnson, 2025 ESD 7 (Oct. 9, 2025) affirmed as modified by the Appeals Master in 2025 EAM 2 (Nov. 4, 2025).
Joe Childers of the Office of the Election Supervisor investigated this protest.
BACKGROUND
On August 5, 2025, Edward Gleason Jr., legal counsel on behalf of Dwayne Johnson, filed a protest against Brian Peyton, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 322 (“P-004”) for retaliating against Johnson for exercising his right to support candidates of his choice running in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 2025-2026 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Election”). Peyton subsequently filed a protest against James Wright arising out of related conduct (“P-007”).
On October 9, 2025, the Election Supervisor issued its consolidated decision in Johnson, 2025 ESD 7 (Oct. 9, 2025) granting Johnson’s protest P-004 and denying Peyton’s protest P-007. As a remedy, the Election Supervisor ordered Peyton to: 1) Immediately cease and desist from further retaliation in violating the Rules; 2) Post the notice attached to Johnson, 2025 ESD 7 (Oct. 9, 2025) on all bulletin boards under Local 322’s jurisdiction and its website until January 11, 2026, notifying members of Peyton’s violation of the Rules; 3) Pay a fine of $500 to be paid no later than five (5) days after the issuance of this decision; 4) 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; and 5) Submit an affidavit attesting to his compliance with the remedies ordered above to the OES within five days of the issuance of that decision (the “Order”). Pursuant to the Election Supervisor’s Order, Peyton was required to comply with the Order and submit an affidavit of compliance by October 14, 2025. He failed to do so.
On October 13, 2025, Peyton appealed the consolidated decision related to P-004 and P-007. On October 14, 2025, by a notice of hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for October 21, 2025. On October 20, 2025, the Election Supervisor and Johnson submitted written arguments in support of their respective positions. In Johnson’s submission, he argued that Peyton had not complied with any of the remedial measures ordered by the Election Supervisor despite the Election Supervisor’s order taking immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. Johnson asked that additional measures be imposed against Peyton to account for the serious harm Peyton’s retaliatory actions caused Johnson and his failure to immediately comply with the Order.[1]
On October 21, 2025, an appeal hearing by video conference was held. At the hearing, Gleason, on behalf of Johnson, argued (in part) that 12 days had passed since the Order issued and that Peyton had not complied with the Election Supervisor’s Order despite no stay being requested or ordered. He reiterated his position that additional measures against Peyton should be imposed. Peyton and his counsel were present at the appeal hearing. Peyton did not request a stay.
Following the hearing, Peyton still did not comply with the Order. On October 28, 2025, Joe Childers, the investigator of this protest for the Office of the Election Supervisor, left a voicemail for Peyton through his counsel regarding Peyton’s failure to comply with the Order despite the fact that Peyton had not requested a stay, and no stay had been ordered. Our investigator did not hear back from Peyton or his attorney.
On October 31, 2025, over three weeks after the Election Supervisor’s Order, the Election Supervisor issued an order directing Peyton to show cause by November 3, 2025, as to why he should not be assessed monetary fines and/or face other remedial action for knowingly failing to comply with the Order in violation of the Rules. See Johnson, 2025 ESD 12 (Oct. 31, 2025).
On November 3, 2025, Peyton responded to the Election Supervisor’s order to show cause.[2] Relying on Article XIII, Section 2(j) of the Rules, which states, “If no timely appeal is taken from the determination of the protest, the determination of the Election Supervisor shall be final and binding,” Peyton argued that the Election Supervisor’s Order was automatically stayed (despite not requesting a stay) because Peyton timely appealed which appeal invoked an automatic stay of enforcement of Johson, 2025 ESD 7 (Oct. 9, 2025) and the Order. He argued that federal courts consistently recognize decisions under election rules as “final and binding” when no timely appeal is filed, and that consequently when a timely appeal is filed, finality is suspended pending review. Citing to United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 742 F. Supp. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), aff’d, 931 F. 2d 177 (2d Cir. 1991) (the Rules carry the force of law and that timely appeal rights must be protected to ensure fair process); U.S. v. IBT, 1991 WL 334242, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 1991) (stating that a failure to appeal a decision within the prescribed period renders that decision final and binding); U.S. v. IBT, 896 F. Supp. 1349, 1353–55 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (emphasizing that procedural deadlines for determination and appeal must be strictly observed to protect due process and avoid prejudice). Peyton also argued that he acted in good faith and that compliance prior to a decision from the Appeals Master would create conflicting directives and undermine the jurisdictional integrity of the process.[3] For relief, Peyton requested that the Election Supervisor’s order be held in abeyance pending the outcome of Peyton’s pending appeal or, in the alternative, that the order to show cause be vacated.
The following day, on November 4, 2025, the Appeals Master issued her decision in 2025 EAM 2 (Nov. 4, 2025) affirming the Election Supervisor’s decision granting Johnson’s protest (P-004) but vacating two provisions of the remedy set forth in the Order and denying Peyton’s protest (P-007). Accordingly, even if the Order had been stayed (it was not), the latest Peyton was required to immediately cease and desist from further retaliation in violation of the Rules, post the Election Supervisor’s notice on all bulletin boards under Local 322’s jurisdiction and its website, and submit an affidavit attesting to his compliance therewith, was five days later (the “Affirmed Order”). Said differently, at the very latest, Peyton was ordered to comply with the Affirmed Order by November 9, 2025.[4]
By Monday, November 10, 2025—six calendar days after the Appeals Master’s decision—Peyton had not complied with the Affirmed Order. That morning, Gleason contacted the Office of the Election Supervisor to inquire if Peyton had responded to the Election Supervisor’s order to show cause and advising that Peyton still had not complied with the posting requirement ordered in the Affirmed Order. That afternoon, Peyton requested, and was granted, an extension to comply with the Affirmed Order by the Appeals Master.[5] Thus, the deadline for Peyton to comply with the Affirmed Order was extended to November 11, 2025. The extension request stated that Peyton had been ill and recovering, which delayed his ability to comply with the Affirmed Order.
Gleason stated that despite Peyton’s apparent illness impacting his ability to comply with the Affirmed Order, Peyton attended Virginia Governor elect Spanberger’s victory party on November 4, 2025.[6] He noted that “it is inconceivable that Mr. Peyton was unable to direct (via telephone or email, for example) his Local 322 agents to ensure that the required postings were made.” Through his attorney, Peyton confirmed that he was out on sick leave between November 5th and November 17th.
Despite the Appeals Master’s extension for Peyton to comply with the Affirmed Order, Peyton failed to do so. As of the morning of November 12, 2025, the required notice had not been posted on bulletin boards at Epps, Aramark or Canteen. Emails confirm the protestor’s allegations that Peyton had failed to comply with the posting requirements within the deadline provided by the Appeals Master. Emails show that Peyton sent the notice required to be posted on November 11th. Peyton also stated that he would “get the Fredericksburg and lively, the airport in the morning”, (emphasis added), a day after Peyton was to comply with the Affirmed Order. Additionally, emails show that as of the morning of November 12th, the required notices still had not been posted at Epps, Canteen and Aramark.
On November 13, 2025, two days after the deadline as extended by the Appeals Master, Peyton submitted an affidavit purportedly affirming his full and complete compliance with the Affirmed Order. For example, Peyton attested, “In accordance with the directives contained in that decision, I have fully complied with each remedial requirement that remains in effect…” Moreover, he stated, “I affirm that I have taken all actions necessary to implement and maintain compliance with the decision of the Election Appeals Master.” However, Peyton did not fully comply with the directives of the Appeals Master because he failed to post the required notices within the extended deadline.
ANALYSIS
The Rules grant the Election Supervisor authority to determine whether the Rules have been violated and, if a violation is found, to “take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4(w). Thus, among the enumerated remedies available to the Election Supervisor is authority to require immediate compliance with his decisions and it is well settled that a decision of the Election Supervisor takes immediate effect unless stayed. Robertson, 2011 ESD 200 April 4, 2011 (citing Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996)); see also O’Brien-Zuckerman, 2020 ESD 1 (June 23, 2020); Leedham Slate, 2006 ESD 340 (Aug. 22, 2006), aff’d, 06 EAM 65 (KC) (Aug. 31, 2006); Montante, P-421-LU317-PGH, P-422-LU317-PGH, P-438-LU317-PGH (Corrected) (Feb. 28, 1996).
In Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996), the Appeals Master rejected the argument that the Election Supervisor’s decision was automatically stayed upon the filing of a timely appeal because of the language in the Rules that the decision becomes “final and binding” if no timely appeal is taken—the very position Peyton took. Specifically, in Lopez, the respondent argued “that under the Rules, the decision did not become final and binding until after the Election Appeals Master resolved the local union’s appeal in this matter. Therefore, according to the local union and the IBT, the local union was not obligated to comply with the Election Officer’s order during the pendency of the appeal.” Id. The Appeals Master rejected this argument:
With regard to the issue of whether decisions of the Election Officer are automatically stayed pending appeal,…, the local union asserts that Article XIV, Sections 2(j) and (n) establish that an order is not effective while an appeal is pending.[7] I disagree. Article I of the Rules states that the Election Officer specifically ‘reserves the authority to take all necessary actions in supervising the election process to insure fair, honest, open and informed elections.’ Moreover, under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Rules,[8] the Election Officer is empowered to require immediate compliance with the Rules. Furthermore, the cramped interpretation of Article XIV urged by the local union and the IBT is at odds with the Rules’ goal of ensuring that violations are quickly remedied and do not affect the outcome of any election. The Rules could not have been intended to impede the Election Officer’s efforts by effectively delaying the remedial impact of her orders pending the outcome of an appeal. Rather, a reasonable reading of the sections upon which the local union relies suggests that these sections were adopted to regulate appeals to the Election Appeals Master and the district court and not to establish the point at which an order of the Election Officer becomes effective.
In Montante, P-421-LU317-PGH, P-422-LU317-PGH, P-438-LU317-PGH (Corrected) (Feb. 28, 1996), the Election Officer further explained:
The protester appealed the Election Officer’s decision in Shanahan, supra. After filing his appeal, and prior to the appeal hearing, the protester filed P-438-LU317-PGH, in which he contended that local union remained obligated to post the original nomination results because the Election Officer’s decision in Shanahan was not final and binding.
…
The protester’s reasoning with respect to the effect of a decision of the Election Officer is incorrect. The Election Appeals Master has held that an order of the Election Officer takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules, unless the party obtains a stay from the Election Officer. In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996). Mr. Montante did not seek a stay in Shanahan. Thus, the Election Officer’s order in that decision to post a revised list of the nomination results was effective upon the decision’s issuance.
Peyton’s argument has clearly been rejected, and we do not find Peyton’s delay excusable under the circumstances. Contrast Robertson (finding that under the circumstances, where compliance with the order was delayed three days as a result of a death in the family, such a delay was excusable). It is within the Election Supervisor’s authority to order a fine for failure to comply with his order. See Leedham, 2001 EAD 409 (July 17, 2001) (granting protest against Cadiz for failing to comply with the Election Administrator’s remedial order outright and imposing a fine of $500 and granting protest against McLean for failing to timely comply with remedial order and issuing a fine of $100 for complying four days late). Peyton ignored the Election Supervisor’s Order for weeks taking the meritless position that it was automatically stayed despite the clear legal precedent.
Peyton’s response to the order to show cause was made weeks after the Order was required to be complied with and Peyton subsequently failed to timely comply with the Affirmed Order. After the Appeals Master issued her decision, Peyton failed to post the required notice and submit an affidavit of compliance by November 9, 2025. Moreover, even after being granted an extension by the Appeals Master, Peyton subsequently failed to timely comply with the Appeals Master’s deadline of November 11, 2025. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that Peyton had not complied with the Affirmed Order by November 11th. In fact, emails to and from Peyton show that he did not plan to post the required notice on two locations until the day after he was ordered to. Further, the evidence shows that the notice was not posted at three other locations by November 12th. Peyton did not attest to his compliance with the Affirmed Order until November 13, 2025—two days after the extended deadline. Although we are unaware of any prior history of Peyton ignoring orders by the Election Supervisor or Appeals Master, we find that he has demonstrated a blatant disregard of the Election Supervisors authority and orders throughout the processing of this matter.
Accordingly, we GRANT this protest.
REMEDY
Based on our findings set forth above, we order Peyton to pay a $100 fine to the Office of the Election Supervisor from his own personal account within two working days of this decision and to submit an affidavit affirming his compliance with this order within three working days of this decision. We recognize that Peyton complied with the Election Supervisor’s order albeit late and not outright. Thus, we determined that a $100 fine is reasonable to deter Peyton and others from failing to timely comply with Election Supervisor’s orders and in furtherance of the Rules to ensure the integrity of the election process. See e.g., Leedham, 2001 EAD 409 (July 17, 2001) (imposing a higher fine for failing to comply with the Election Supervisor’s order outright compared to late compliance).[9]
We further hereby put Peyton on notice that any subsequent failure to timely comply with any order of the Election Supervisor in violation of the Rules may result in an increased assessment of monetary fines and/or other remedial action.
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
2026 ESD 27
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Dwayne Johnson
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
Brian Peyton
Brian.peyton@teamsterslocal322.org
Jason Veny
Richard Hooker
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Joe Childers
Kelly Hogan
[1] Johnson did not request any specific additional remedial measures but suggested that doubling the original fine and/or imposing an additional notice requirement at Peyton’s expense would be reasonable.
[2] Peyton’s counsel only included Appeals Master Barbara Jones, Thomas Kokalas, Election Supervisor Timothy Hillman, Kelly Hogan and Brian Peyton on the email response.
[3] We do not find Peyton’s notice and procedural defect argument persuasive. Although Peyton was not cc’d on the original email issuing the Election Supervisor’s decision, Peyton is represented by counsel and his counsel was. Further, by Peyton’s own admission, he was notified of the decision in a timely manner. Moreover, there is no question that Peyton and his counsel were aware that the Election Supervisor’s order was effective immediately as it was discussed at the hearing. We also note that Peyton subsequently failed to include all of those on the distribution list on his subsequent communications related to the Order to Show Cause and request for extension to comply with the Affirmed Order.
[4] Peyton was required to submit the affidavit of compliance within five days after the issuance of the decision. Under the Rules, “day(s)” is defined as “calendar day(s), unless otherwise specified.” Rules, Definition 11.
[5] Peyton only included Appeals Master Barbara Jones, Thomas Kokalas, Election Supervisor Timothy Hillman, Joe Childers, Kelly Hogan and Brian Peyton on this request for an extension.
[6] He stated that this was confirmed by an ABC New’s Live Report from that night.
[7] Under the 1996 Election Rules, Article XIV, Section 2(j) stated: “If no timely appeal is taken from the determination of the Election Officer or her representative, that determination shall become final and binding.” Article XIV, Section 2(l) stated, “the decision [of the Election Appeals Master] shall be effective and binding as of its issuance unless it is stayed or overturned by the Court.” Lopez, 96 EAM 73, n.1 (February 13, 1996). Similarly, Article XIII, Section 2(j) of the Rules states, “If no timely appeal is taken from the determination of the protest, the determination of the Election Supervisor shall be final and binding,” and Section 2(l) states that “[t]he decision [of the Election Appeals Master] shall be effective upon issuance.”
[8] Similar language remains in the Rules. Specifically, under Article XIII, Section 4 (w) (Remedies), “Such remedial action may include, without limitation: … (w) requiring immediate compliance with these Rules, or any portion thereof…”
[9] We note that Peyton’s failure to comply here is more egregious than the four-day delay in the Leedham case. However, we determined that the same fine was warranted here where this appears to be Peyton’s first offense.