OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: BRANDON BULLARD ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 65
and JERRY HODGES )
) Issued: April 13, 2026
Protestor. )
) OES Case No. P-133-032526 and
) P-135-032626
BACKGROUND
Brandon Bullard and Jerry Hodges filed protests against Jody Whitlock, Local 391 Business Agent and candidate for delegate on the Armstrong/Gibbs slate for allegedly stealing and/or throwing away the opposing slate’s campaign materials located in the breakroom and for making threatening remarks when he was confronted about it in violations of the Rules for the 2025-2026 International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). These allegations arise from the same incidents and were consolidated.
Felicia Hardesty of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated these protests. She interviewed Brandon Bullard, Jerry Hodges, Jody Whitlock, Leaon Rhodes, Rick Armstrong, principal officer of Local 391 and candidate on the Armstrong/Gibbs slate, and OJ Caldwell and reviewed materials submitted in connection with this protest including, but not limited to, the video and photograph taken by Rhodes and the Armstrong Memorandum (defined below).
BACKGROUND
There are two opposing slates in Local 391’s delegate election: the Armstrong/Gibbs slate and the New Vision 391 slate. Whitlock is a Business Agent at the ABF freight facility in Kernersville, NC, where Bullard and Hodges are employed. He is also a candidate on the Armstrong/Gibbs slate.
On March 24, 3036, between 10 am and 12 pm, and, again, on March 25, 2026, around 7 am, Whitlock entered the breakrooms located at the ABF freight facility in Kernersville (in the shop and at the dock) and removed and/or destroyed approximately 2,000 campaign cards for the New Vision 391 slate located there. Whitlock admitted to doing this.
On at least one of these occasions, Leon Rhodes (a candidate on the New Vision 391 slate) and Jerry Hodges (not a candidate on either slate), both members of Local 391, were in the breakroom when Whitlock tore up and threw away some of the New Vision slate’s campaign cards. Hodges asked Whitlock what he was doing with the cards. Whitlock stated that he was throwing away trash. As Whitlock threw out the cards, Rhodes put out new cards, which Whitlock proceeded to take and throw into the trash. According to Hodges, he told Whitlock that he needed to leave to which Whitlock responded, “make me.” Hodges told Whitlock to grow up. At this point, Whitlock walked up close to Hodges, about 6-12 inches away, and said in a confrontational manner, “Do you want to go?” Hodges asked, “Do what?” Whitlock repeated, “I’m not afraid of you, do you want to go?” Hodges shook his head and walked away. Hodges understood Whitlock’s statements to be threats to engage in physical violence against him. Hodges stated that he should be able to come to work without being threatened, let alone a Business Agent.
Rhodes corroborated Hodges statement. Additionally, following Whitlock’s threat towards Hodges, Rhodes began recording a video of Whitlock. Review of the video shows Whitlock in the breakroom walking towards the trash, he then looks to the camera, continues to walk to the trash, then pauses and takes a second look at the camera, apparently realizing that he is being recorded, and proceeds to throw something away stating, “trash” as he walks out.
Bullard was outside the facility and witnessed Whitlock leave the breakroom area on March 25, 2026. Bullard spoke with Hodges and Rhodes about what happened with Whitlock in the breakroom and subsequently filed a protest.
Immediately upon learning of these protests, Armstrong informed the investigator that Whitlock admitted to destroying the campaign material and asked what he could do to make things right. On March 30, 2026, Armstrong issued a memorandum Re: Tampering with Delegates Election Candidate’s Campaign Literature to Local 391 officers, business agents and staff (the “Armstrong Memorandum”). Pursuant to the Armstrong Memorandum, Armstrong wrote that he wanted “to remind all Officers, Agents, and candidates that you should not tamper with or dispose of any campaign materials from any candidates running in the 2026 IBT Delegates Election.”
Although Whitlock admits that he threw out the New Vision 391 campaign cards, he denies threatening Hodges. Whitlock told the investigator that he “is a small guy and would never threaten anyone.” As discussed in further detail below, we do not find Whitlock credible.
OJ Caldwell, an alternate delegate candidate on the New Visio 391 slate, is responsible for producing and distributing the campaign cards that Whitlock destroyed. Caldwell stated that each 1,000 pack of cards costs $189 to produce. He gave Rhodes two packs of cards to distribute on March 24, 2026 at the ABF Freight facility. None of the 2,000 cards could be located at the facility after Whitlock left on March 25, 2026.
ANALYSIS
The Rules provide that each member has the freedom to exercise his/her political rights, including the right to distribute campaign literature free from interference. Rules, Article VII, Section 12. Moreover, Section VII, 12(d) states:
No restrictions shall be placed upon candidates' or members' preexisting rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity. Similarly, no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates' or members' preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fund-raising events, or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a non-discriminatory basis.
In Hardison, 2006 ESD 116 (February 27, 2006), appeal withdrawn, 06 EAM 20 (March 8, 2006), a local union president removed campaign flyers from windshields in an employee parking lot before employees could see them. But, the placement of campaign flyers on vehicle windshields in an employee parking lot was, absent a uniformly-enforced employer rule to the contrary, protected activity under the Rules. Therefore, the action of the local union president in removing the campaign material impermissibly interfered with the right of the protestor to campaign among fellow members. See also Hoffa-Hall 2016, 2016 ESD 330 (Nov. 15, 2016) (to be protected under the Rules, the campaign material destroyed must have been placed in a location protected by the Rules and removed improperly).
Here, there is no dispute that Whitlock removed and destroyed the New Vision 391 slate’s campaign cards. There is no past practice prohibiting the distribution of campaign materials in breakrooms and distributing the campaign materials in the breakroom is protected by the Rules. We, therefore, find that the destruction of the campaign material interfered with the right of New Vision 391 slate to campaign and otherwise solicit support in violation of the Rules.
Whitlock denies asking Hodges twice if he wanted to go outside in response to Hodge’s inquiry about Whitlock throwing away the campaign material. We do not find Whitlock credible. Hodges, who is not a candidate on either slate, and Rhodes, who witnessed this altercation, were interviewed separately and provided a substantially similar account of these events. We further find that Hodges has no motive to lie whereas Whitlock has a clear motive to deny this conduct.
Notwithstanding, we do not find that Whitlock’s statements rise to the level required to constitute a violation of the Rules. To constitute a threat in violation of the Rules, conduct must constitute a palpable threat of imminent harm. Although Whitlock approached Hodges stating, “do you want to go,” which Hodges understood to be a threat, Whitlock stopped before he reached Hodges, did not raise a hand to him, clench his fist, or otherwise make a physical gesture signaling that he intended to hit Hodges. His statement further implied that the situation would escalate if Hodges did not leave, Hodges declined to engage further, shaking his head and walking away. See Zuckerman, 2015 ESD 36 (October 13, 2015) (threatening words that incorporate a contingency within the control of the person allegedly threatened is not actionable under the Rules); Echeveria, 2006 ESD 66 (February 3, 2006) (denying protest where the threats were contingent rather than immediate. Specifically, the threat to Kane that they “go across the street” where “I will kill your ass,” because “Kane did not accept the offer and cross the street. In sum, the physical harm that Torres threatened was not palpable.”); Torres, 2011 ESD 236 (April 27, 2011) (no impermissible threat where no touching or menacing behavior); Galvan, 2011 ESD 238 (April 27, 2011) (same); Gutierrez, 2011 ESD 239 (April 27, 2011) (same). Thus, based on precedent we do not find that it constitutes a violation.[1]
Accordingly, we hereby GRANT these protests in part and DENY in part.
REMEDY
When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process. “The Election Supervisor’s discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy is broad and is entitled to deference.” Hailstone & Martinez, 10 EAM 7 (September 14, 2010).
We order Whitlock to:
- Immediately cease and desist from further violation of the Rules and, specifically, to cease and desist from interfering with the campaign rights of other candidates and the rights of members to receive campaign advocacy.
- Reimburse the New Vision 391 slate, personally, for the cost of the campaign materials he destroyed, totaling $378.
- By Tuesday, April 14, 2026, Whitlock shall post the attached notice to all bulletin boards at ABF Freight Facility under Local 391’s jurisdiction and maintain that posting for a period of thirty days and Local 391’s website to notify members of the requirements of the Rules and that Whitlock violated them.
- Whitlock shall submit an affidavit with the Office of the Election Supervisor demonstrating compliance with all aspects of the orders issued in this decision by Wednesday, April 15, 2026.
A decision of the Election Supervisor takes immediate effect unless stayed. Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996) (rejecting the argument that the Election Supervisor’s decisions are automatically stayed pending appeal).
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 65
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Brandon Bullard
Jerry Hodges
Jody Whitlock
jwhitlock@teamsterslocal391.org
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.)
Felicia Hardesty
Paul Dever
Thomas Kokalas
Kelly Hogan
NOTICE TO LOCAL UNION 391 MEMBERS
The Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) provide that IBT members each member be free to exercise his/her political rights, including the right to distribute campaign literature free from interference.
The Election Supervisor enforces these provisions of the Rules. After an investigation, the Election Supervisor has determined that JODY WHITLOCK improperly removed and/or destroyed the New Vision 391 slate’s campaign materials in violation of the Rules. The Election Supervisor will not tolerate such conduct.
As a remedy for this violation of the Rules, the Election Supervisor has ordered JODY WHTILOCK to (1) immediately cease and desist from further violating the Rules, specifically, from interfering with the campaign rights of other candidates and the rights of members to receive campaign advocacy; (2) reimburse the New Vision 391 slate for the cost of the 2,000 campaign cards he destroyed; (3) post this notice to all bulletin boards at the Freight Facility under Local 391’s jurisdiction for thirty days and Local 391’s website; and (4) submit an affidavit demonstrating his compliance with the Election Supervisor’s order.
timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
ELECTION SUPERVISOR
1750 K Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
TELEPHONE: 844-428-8683
This is an official notice from the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters that must remain posted for thirty (30) consecutive days, and must not be altered or defaced in any manner, or covered by any other material.