2025 EAM 3 (re: 2025 ESD 9)

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2025 ESD 9 (“ESD 9”) was issued on October 13, 2025 (OES Case No. E-016-100425-WE) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).   ESD 9 addresses a protest filed by Jason Rabinowitz, Principal Officer of Local 2010, challenging the eligibility of Michelle Herrara to run as a delegate candidate pursuant to Article VI of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).    

             On October 13th, the Election Supervisor granted Mr. Rabinowitz’s protest and found that Ms. Herrera was ineligible to run as a delegate.  On October 14th, Ms. Herrara appealed the decision.  On October 15th, by Notice of Hearing, which was modified by subsequent orders, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for October 22, 2025.  On October 20, 2025, Mr. Rabinowitz submitted supplemental written arguments in support of his position. On October 21, 2025, Teamster member Laura Newman submitted supplemental written arguments in support of Ms. Herrera.  On October 22, 2025, the OES submitted supplemental written arguments in support of its position.            

A hearing by video conference was held on October 22, 2025.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Kelly Hogan on behalf of the OES; Mr. Rabinowitz on behalf of himself; Laura Newman, Marianna Battiste and Michelle Herrera on behalf of Ms. Herrera.

For the reasons set forth below, the Election Supervisor’s determinations granting the protest are AFFIRMED.[1] 

Ms. Herrara became a member of Local 2010 in December 2023.  On October 4, 2025, pursuant to Local 2010’s election plan, Ms. Herrera was nominated to run as a delegate to the IBT 2026 Convention on behalf of Local 2010.  To be eligible to run as a delegate, however, candidates must be “a member in continuous good standing of the local union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nominations for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers, or failure to pay fines or assessments.” See Article VI, Section 1(a)(1)-(3) of the Rules.

Prior to the nomination meeting, Ms. Herrera had only been a member in continuous good standing for 22 months, not the 24 months required under the Rules. Accordingly, the Election Supervisor appropriately determined that she was ineligible to run as a delegate candidate.  See Tabish, 2001 EAD 96 (January 24, 2001); Eligibility of Langoni, 2016 ESD 118 (February 23, 2016).

On appeal, Ms. Herrera submits that she is nevertheless eligible because Local 2010’s delegate election should have occurred in the Spring of 2026 pursuant to the Rules when she would presumably be in good standing.  See Article II, Section 3(a)(1).  Additionally, on appeal, Ms. Herrera claims that other delegate candidates who have been affiliated with Local 2010 for less than 24 months have been permitted to run as a delegate and, therefore, she should also be allowed to run.  Neither claim warrants reversal of the Election Supervisor’s determination. 

Local 2010’s delegate election was appropriately scheduled to coincide with its local officer election under the Rules and there was no evidence to suggest that the timing of the election was intended to prevent candidates from running.  See Article II, Section 3(a)(1).  In addition, the fact that other candidates may have served less than 24 months with Local 2010 does not somehow provide an exception to the eligibility Rules.  Moreover, the eligibility of those other members is not disputed.

Accordingly, given the facts and circumstances presented in this protest, Ms. Herrera’s appeal is denied. 

SO ORDERED

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         November 7, 2025
DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):