Shaw, 2025 ESD 14
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: SHAW, DEMETRIA ) Protest Decision 2025 ESD 14
)
) Issued: November 12, 2025
)
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-025-110425-SO
)
)
)
Demetria Shaw, a member of Local 728 and a candidate on the Empower slate in local union 728’s local officer election (the “Local Officer Election”), filed a protest against the New Vision slate pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Election (“Rules”). The protest alleges a pattern of misleading and improper campaign practices by the New Vision slate in violation of Article VII, Section 12(a) and 12(c) of the Rules.
The Office of Election Supervisor’s Felicia Hardesty investigated this protest.
Local 728 is currently running its Local Officer Election. The ballot count for the Local Officer Election is scheduled for November 18, 2025. Shaw is a candidate on the Empower slate in the Local Officer Election. In 2026, Local 728 will also conduct its delegate and alternate delegate election for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 2026 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“IBT Delegate Election”). Pursuant to Local 728’s Local Union Election Plan submitted and approved by the Office of the Election Supervisor in connection with the IBT Delegate Election, the nomination notice for the IBT Delegate Election will be mailed on January 9, 2026, the nomination meeting for the IBT Delegate Election is scheduled for February 7, 2026, ballots are to be mailed in March for the ballot count on April 10, 2026.
The New Vision slate is utilizing a Facebook page, “Local 728 New Vision Slate,” to campaign for the Local Officer Election. As part of its campaign, Shaw stated that the New Vision slate used another member’s name and likeness on a post on the Local 728 New Vision Slate Facebook page without permission to improperly imply that he endorsed the slate.[1]
Review of this Facebook page shows that the New Vision slate is utilizing it to campaign for the Local Officer Election only. For example, there are videos and photographs posted of candidates and members on the Facebook page discussing and encouraging viewers to vote in the Local Officer Election and images of the Local Officer Election ballot mailed out. There is no reference to the IBT Delegate Election. Matthew Higdon, President of Local 728 and candidate for President on the New Vision slate in the Local Officer Election confirmed that all endorsements on the New Vision Slate Facebook page are for the Local Officer Election currently taking place.[2] Shaw has not provided any evidence to the contrary. See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 1 (burden rests on the protestor to present evidence showing that a violation occurred); see also Pike, P278 (January 30, 1996).
Prior to filing the subject protest, on October 17, 2025, Shaw filed a protest with the Secretary Treasurer of Local 728, Wes Turner, against the New Vision slate for similar allegations related to gaining an unfair advantage by misusing union logos and creating false impressions of endorsement in connection with the Local Officer Election. In that protest, she specifically stated that her concern was with the “current election.” The only current election for Local 728 is the Local Officer Election. She also noted in her protest that Secretary Treasurer Turner “is a candidate and cannot adjudicate impartially.” Turner is a candidate for Secretary Treasurer in the Local Officer Election. Pursuant to a letter from the Executive Board of Local 728, signed by Turner and dated October 20, 2025, Shaw’s October 17th protest was dismissed because it “makes general allegations against one or both opposing slates but does not contain sufficient factual matter specifying the exact nature and specifications of the alleged violations of the ‘IBT Election Rules and Local 728 procedures’…”
Shaw subsequently filed the protest at issue here with the OES. Like her earlier protest filed with the local, Protest No. P-025-110425-SO arises out of conduct related to the Local Officer Election only. There is no evidence of any nexus between the conduct alleged herein and the IBT Delegate Election. Shaw does not dispute this.
ANALYSIS
It is clear that the Election Supervisor only has authority to conduct and supervise the election of delegates to the International Convention, the nomination of candidates for International office at the Convention, and the election of International officers. See Article I of the Rules (stating that the Election Supervisor’s authority to supervise the electoral process “is limited to the nomination and election of International Convention delegates and alternate delegates and the nomination and election of International Officers. These Rules are not applicable to elections of IBT subordinate body officers.”); see also Brady 2021 ESD 55, affirmed by 2021 EAM 10 (“The Election Supervisor enforces the Election Rules, which govern nomination and election of delegates and alternate delegates to the IBT convention, and nomination and election of International officers.”). The Election Supervisor does not have jurisdiction over local union elections. See Darsey, P-276-LU528-SEC (Jan. 24, 1991) (the Election Officer has no jurisdiction over matters unrelated to the IBT International Union delegate and officer election.”); see also Jordan, 2001 EAD 76 (January 3, 2001); Collett, 2000 EAD 66 (December 19, 2000); Hale, 2000 EAD 61 (December 12, 2000); Weronke, P867 (August 19, 1996); Bishop, 2011 ESD 112 (February 14, 2011).
The protest alleges misconduct only with respect to Local 728’s Local Election. The protestor has not provided any evidence that would tie the alleged misconduct set forth in the protest related to the Local Election to the Delegate Election and, therefore, has provided no basis for the Election Supervisor to adjudicate The evidence shows that the allegations set forth in the protest relate to campaigning activities solely for the Local Election—not the Delegate Election. We do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged misconduct. Accordingly, we DENY this protest.
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
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Felicia Hardesty
[1] When the investigator asked for contact information of the member to investigate further, Shaw declined to provide it stating that the member did not want to get involved.
[2] He also stated that he informed Shaw and other on the Empower slate that the Office of Election Supervisor does not have jurisdiction over local union officer elections.