Eligibility of Greenslade, Swannie, et al., 2026 ESD 53

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

 

 

                                                            )           Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 53

IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF                  )

LISA GREENSLADE,                       )           Issued: March 3, 2026

BRAD SWANNIE, BARRIE             )

POIRIER, and ERIC                          )           OES Case No. E-072-020926

MAYERVICH                                    )

                                                            )          

 

INTRODUCTION

Courtney Tuckwood and Larry Yampolsky filed pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) challenging the eligibility of Barrie Poirier, Lisa Greenslade, Eric Mayervich, and Brad Swannie (collectively, the “Candidates”) to run for delegate or alternate delegate from Local 155. As these protests challenge the eligibility of the same members and were filed less than twenty minutes apart, we consolidated them as Protest No. E-072-020926.  

            Tuckwood’s protest alleges that the Candidates “don’t meet the criteria as set out within the constitution to run for any election.” Following the filing the protest, Tuckwood clarified that the basis for his claims is that the Candidates were not gainfully employed in their respective craft throughout the subject eligibility period as required by the IBT Constitution. He explained further his bases for these allegations:

·         That Poirier stated publicly that he was moving to Kitimat BC and was going to work for a trucking company called Bandstra;

• Greenslade is not working;
• Mayervich now lives in Saskatchewan; and
• Swannie posted on social media that he available to assist people with his immigration consultant company.

Yampolsky’s protest alleges that the Candidate’s “do not meet the requirements to run as per IBT constitution Article II, section 4(a)(1).”

Ron Webne of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.

APPLICABLE LAW

Pursuant to Art. VI, Section 1 (a)(1)-(3) of the Rules, to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate, or International Officer position, one must:

(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.

For purposes of this protest, our analysis focuses on the second requirement above regarding continuous employment in the craft during the Eligibility Period.[1] Periods of unemployment during the twenty-four (24) month period preceding the nomination shall not be considered a break in active employment at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union if “for the period of unemployment, the member was actively seeking and available for employment in the craft and not working outside the craft during such period of unemployment, or by active pursuit of an unresolved grievance or other legal action challenging suspension or discharge.” Rules, Art. VI, Section 2(b); see also IBT Constitution, Art. II, Section 4(a)(1).

In addition, working under another local union’s jurisdiction while maintaining status on the home local union’s hiring list does not destroy eligibility with the home local union. Eligibility of Moreno, Flores, and Hernandez, 2016 ESD 124 (February 27, 2016), aff’d, 2016 EAM 12 (March 4, 2016). For example, the Election Officer has found that a member who remained on a movie referral list for union jobs in his local’s jurisdiction was protected by the exception under Article VI, Section 2(b) of the Rules despite working several non-union jobs while awaiting a referral. The Election Officer explained:

The Election Officer will not penalize members who are unable to find work in their craft who take temporary or part-time employment outside the craft while actively seeking and available for union employment. [This member’s] presence on the movie wrangler list demonstrates his willingness and intention to take employment in the craft should it become available. As a result, [the member] is protected by the exception… 

Funk, E-86 (February 20, 1996), aff’d, 96 EAM 107 (February 28, 1996) (emphasis added). To the contrary, the Election Officer has found a member who did not actively seek employment under the local’s jurisdiction for 25 days, was not protected by that exception. See Eligibility of Wiggins, E-121 (March 18, 1996), aff’d, 96 EAM 151 (March 27, 1996). While these cases show examples where members are protected by the exception despite taking some work outside the craft, they are instructive because they show that staying on a referral list for work under the local’s jurisdiction, like remaining available on Local 155’s dispatch list, is sufficient to show a member’s “willingness and intention to take employment in that craft should it become available.” See Eligibility of Duncan, 2006 ESD 55 (January 26, 2006), aff’d, 06 EAM 9 (February 14, 2006) (unemployed member who took part-time work outside the craft remained eligible because of his presence on a local union referral list); see also In re Eligibility of Douglas McCauley, Local 455, 2006 ESD 151 (Mar. 17, 2006) (finding that the member who was unemployed for less than a month, who immediately began looking for employment and was on the seniority list for multiple job sites, therefore, was actively seeking full time employment at the craft during his brief time of unemployment, and was employed in each of the twenty-four months of the eligibility period was eligible).

The IBT Constitution recognizes that those who are unable to work due to illness or injury are not deemed unemployed. Indeed, members on sick leave, sick leave, Family Medical Leave, or worker’s compensation who retains reemployment rights with an employer party to a collective bargaining agreement are not considered to be unemployed. IBT Constitution, Art. XVIII, Section 6(a). Consistent with this, when a member sustains an injury at work that renders him or her unable to physically work, a local union cannot place the member on withdrawal status if the member 1) is receiving worker’s compensation benefits and 2) retains re-employment rights with an employer party to a collective bargaining agreement. See Rules, Article VI, Section 2(b); See In re Eligibility of Edwin Taylor and James Price, Local Union 107, 2011 ESD 95 (Jan. 31, 2011). Additionally, the member will still be protected after release from worker’s compensation provided he or she is seeking and available for work in the craft and does not work outside the craft during such period of unemployment. See id.

Local 155’s Nomination Meeting and Eligibility Period

The nomination meeting for Local 155 took place on February 8, 2026. Thus, to be eligible to run for delegate or alternate delegate, the Candidates must have been employed at the craft in the jurisdiction of Local 155 from February 2024 through January 2026. (the “Eligibility Period”).

Local 155’s Dispatch System

The craft in which members of Local 155 work is movie and television production. Like other Local 155 members, none of the Candidates work for a single employer. Rather, their work consists of temporary jobs for a variety of TV and movie production companies. When one job is over, they may accept another. To facilitate this process, Local 155 utilizes a dispatch system. Aly Morris, the administrative assistant for Local 155, and Gail Antoshchuk, the office manager, explained how Local 155’s dispatch system works.

Members acquire jobs through a dispatch system operated by a third party in cooperation with Local 155. When a production company needs help, it calls the local, and a dispatcher finds a member to take the job. The production company may request a particular member, in which case the dispatcher will call that member directly to see if they are available for the job. If a particular member is not requested, jobs are offered to members based on seniority and member preferences (if any).

The “status” of each Local 155 member is maintained through a computer system. The system identifies each member as one of three statuses at all times: (1) working; (2) available; or (3) unavailable. Members are expected to keep their statuses up-to-date, which they can do by either logging into the system and directly updating their status themselves or by calling the dispatcher to notify them of their status and the dispatcher update it for them in the system. It is the member’s obligation to “ensure that they have provided the Union with their accurate up-to-date dispatch status” as working, available, or unavailable. Local 155’s Bylaws.

 

Members must not work in Local 155’s jurisdiction unless their dispatch status is accurate and up-to-date. A member’s failure to ensure the accuracy of dispatch status will lead to possible fines and/or suspension from the Union’s referral list and may affect their status as a member in good standing.

Once a member or non-member accessing work through the employment referral system declines three (3) day-hire dispatches in a single day, excluding any asap calls, the member or a Permittee will be removed from the day-hire availability list, not to be re-entered until the following day when they can again book-in to provide notice of availability for dispatch that day.

Local 155’s Bylaws, Section 20(F)(10).

There are instances where the dispatcher may go into the system and change a member’s status without the knowledge or consent of the member. When a member finishes a job but does not update their status as required by the bylaws, it is Local 155’s practice to call the job captain (Local 155’s point of contact with the production company) to confirm whether the member is still working that job. If the member is no longer working, then the dispatcher will go into the system and unilaterally change the member’s status to unavailable. The local does not contact the member to confirm if they are, in fact, unable or unwilling to work or otherwise make any further inquiry before changing their status.

Morris and Antoshchuk explained that this has been Local 155’s practice for a long time. The local assumes that if the member has not updated their status at the end of a job, then they probably do not want to be bothered with dispatch calls about new jobs. They explained that this practice also helps the local streamline the dispatch system because it avoids requiring the dispatchers to make calls that may be unnecessary. Morris and Antoshchuk said that although no direct notice is given when the local changes a member’s status, the members are well familiar with this process and if their work designation status is switched to unavailable in the system by the local, despite the member being available for work, then the onus is on the members to go into the system and correct their status. As an example, they explained that once Mayervich did not update his status after finishing a job so the local marked him as unavailable. They said that Mayevich saw this and, within 20 minutes, called the dispatcher and asked to have his status changed to available. 

We find that when the local unilaterally places a member on unavailable status without notice, it does not conclusively prove that the member is not actually available for work; however, because of the local’s bylaws, which clearly require each member to ensure that their status designations are accurate and up-to-date, and its long-standing practice of automatically designating a member as unavailable under these circumstances, members are aware that by failing to update their status following the end of a job will result in their status being changed to unavailable.

Unlike employment with a single employer, Local 155 members are not compelled to take every job offered because there is always someone else who will accept it. According to Morris and Antoshchuk while some members of Local 155 work every day, it is also common for there to be periods of time between jobs for members. This is partly because members are allowed to choose certain criteria or preferences for jobs they will or will not take. Preferences may include license restrictions, specific positions (e.g., coordinator only, captain only, or day shifts only), date or time restrictions, and location restrictions. Roughly 50% of Local 155’s members have some job preferences, which are provided to the local and dispatcher and are used to streamline the dispatch process. Members are encouraged to select their preferences so dispatchers do not waste time calling members who will not accept a particular job.

Some members have more preferences than others, but the more preferences a member has, the less job opportunities may be available to them. In other words, the more restrictive the preferences, the fewer jobs match those preferences; however, as noted above, it is Local 155’s practice to permit, if not encourage, the selection of preferences—this is inherent in the “craft” for Local 155.

When a job becomes available, but a member has provided notice they will not accept that type of job, the dispatch program should note “INEL” (ineligible) in the job description section. Where the job description makes this note, the member should not be called for that job. When a member is not available for work, the notation “UNAV” (unavailable) appears. If a member is called about a job but does not want to take it, the notation “TD” should be made, indicating that the member “turned down” the job. The varied nature of the jobs available for members of Local 155 and the dispatch system provide inherent flexibility for members to select certain jobs and decline others.

None of the Candidates worked in the craft under Local 155’s jurisdiction all of the 24 consecutive months during the Eligibility Period but we must consider whether any exceptions apply.

The Eligibility of Barrie Poirier

The protestor alleges that Poirier moved to Kitimat and started working for Bandstra Transport as a driver. Poirier acknowledged that he moved to Kitimat in 2022 but that several months ago he moved to Aldergrove, which is 45 minutes from Vancouver and close to a production studio. He also acknowledged that he worked for Bandstra Transport for two to three months from March 2022 until April or May 2022 but quit due to back pain and family reasons. Poirier states that he did not work or earn money from any job other than what is noted in the dispatch records during the entire Eligibility Period. We have no evidence that Poirier worked outside the jurisdiction of Local 155 during the Eligibility Period. He last worked through the Local 155 dispatch system on February 26, 2026.

Morris and Antoshchuk noted that Poirier’s current restrictions substantially limit his job opportunities.^[2] But, they also stated that they do not know why Poirier was designated unavailable or why he selected such preferences. They had no information to refute Poirier’s statements about his physical limitations. We note that Poirier’s preferences appear to be consistent with his stated physical impairments.

Local 155 provided dispatch records for Poirier from February 1, 2024, through January 31, 2026. The dispatch records show the following:

• Poirier designated himself unavailable on December 27, 2023, and he remained unavailable until March 8, 2024, when he designated himself as available. He worked on March 9 and 12, 2024.
• Poirier designated himself as unavailable March 15, 2024 through May 10, 2024 when Poirier marked himself as available.^[3]
• Poirier designated himself as unavailable May 15-September 27, 2024 when Poirer marked himself as available. He has been designated as available since then and worked on February 26, 2026.

Poirier has no specific recollection of designating himself as unavailable in the dispatch system but does not dispute it. Rather, he explained that if he marked himself unavailable at times it was because he was unable to work due to his physical limitations.

Mr. Poirier is 59 years old.  He states the reason he has not worked is severe physical limitations. He has been the victim of two rear-end collisions. The second of these occurred in 2017. The accidents left him with three “collapsed” vertebrae in his lower back and two collapsed vertebrae in his neck.  As a result, he can’t lift heavy objects, can’t push, and has trouble sitting for more than an hour or hour and a half.  Some Local 155 jobs involve carrying heavy cable and lights, which he cannot do. He has headaches, migraines, numbness in his extremities, and stiffness in his lower back. He suffers from fiber myalgia (chronic pain) and attends a pain clinic every two weeks where he receives saline trigger point injections. This has given him some relief from the pain. He takes two Advil every two hours to help manage his pain. He said that beginning around February 1, 2024, he was in so much pain he could not work, including light duty jobs. Around December 2025, he started to feel a little better. Poirier stated that he worked one day recently, February 26, 2026.

According to Poirier, during the Eligibility Period, to the extent he could work at all, he could only do “light duty” such as working as “office driver.” This job involves delivering scripts or small packages to production staff and going to the store to purchase items. There is only one of these jobs per production. There are only a limited number of jobs he can do.  He can’t do jobs involving heavy lifting, that last more than eight hours, or that require him to work at night, because he has to get his sleep.

Poirier has not received sick leave, Family Medical Leave, workers compensation benefits, or disability payments during the Eligibility Period. In 2022 he received approximately $80,000 form ICBC (the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia)^[4] as compensation for the 2017 rear end collision. He received an additional $32,000 in the fall of 2024. These payments were intended to compensate him for his injures, pain and suffering, and present and future lost wages.

We found Poirier to be credible as to his physical condition and his ability to work.

Pursuant to Article XVIII, Sec. 6(a) of the IBT Constitution, a member is not considered to be unemployed if the member is on sick leave, Family Medical Leave, or workers’ compensation and retains the reemployment rights with an employer party to a collective bargaining agreement. Although this provision appears in the context of when a local union must issue a withdrawal card to a member who is unemployed, it evidences a recognition that a member is not considered to be “unemployed” if he is physically unable to work.

If Poirier had received workers’ compensation or Family Medical Leave benefits, it would serve as evidence to create a presumption that Poirier was unable to work during that time. However, the reverse is not true. In other words, just because Porier did not receive those benefits, it does not establish that he was, in fact, able to work. Notably, there is nothing in the IBT Constitution that prevents a member from proving that he was not able work even though he was not receiving   workers’ compensation or Family Medical Leave pay.

As noted above, we found Poirier to be credible. We conclude that Poirier, who according to him, had no source of income during the Eligibility Period (but paid his dues in a timely manner for 24 consecutive months prior to the month of his nomination), did, during the Eligibility Period, work when he was physically able to do so, given his limitations, which is sufficient for meeting the “working in the trade” criteria. We find this to be consistent with the IBT Constitution insofar as it does not regard someone who is unable to work as unemployed. Moreover, we find this to be consistent with the nature of the “craft” in which members of Local 155 work. Specifically, the dispatch system permits members to turn down jobs he or she is fully capable of performing simply because, for reasons they choose, they don’t want to do them without deeming them “unemployed” for purposes of “working in the craft.” It follows that a member who turns down a job only because he is physically unable to perform it should not be placed in a worse position.[5]

Accordingly, we find that Poirier is eligible and DENY the allegations in this protest against him.

The Eligibility of Lisa Greenslade

Greenslade’s dispatch records show that she was designated unavailable on April 6, 2023. Morris believes that Greenslade called into dispatch and requested to be placed on unavailable status but could not confirm.[6] Greenslade stated that she injured herself shoveling snow on January 22, 2022, and has been on workers’ compensation since April 2023. According to Greenslade, WCB asked her to try working so she tried working one shift at the end of 2024 or the beginning of 2025 but was in too much pain to continue. It appears that the day Greenslade was talking about was July 24, 2024, because the dispatch records show that is the only day she worked throughout the Eligibility Period. After working this one day, Greenslade did not update her work status. When Local 155 learned from Wayne Adamson from the production company that Greenslade was no longer working, the dispatcher, Casey Roberts, marked her as unavailable on July 30, 2024. She has remained in that status since that time.

 Although Greenslade has remained on unavailable status, she stated that she is on permanent disability awaiting surgery and as noted above, has been on workers’ compensation throughout the Eligibility Period. We find Greendale credible and have not been provided with any evidence to refute her statements.

Since Greenslade has been on workers’ compensation due to her injury and has retained reemployment rights for production companies through the dispatch system should she recover sufficiently to return to work, the local may not issue her a withdrawal card, and her employment at the craft is not interrupted. See IBT Constitution, Art. XVIII, Section 6(a) (a local union must issue a withdrawal card to an unemployed member who remains unemployed for more than 6 months. However, the provision states further that a member “is not considered to be unemployed if the member is on … worker’s compensation and retains reemployment rights with an employer party to a collective bargaining agreement.”); see also In re Eligibility of Edwin Taylor and James Price, Local Union 107, 2011 ESD 95 (Jan. 31, 2011) (member who was injured at work, on workers compensation and retained re-employment rights with his employer albeit not at the same location since it ceased operations met the employment at the craft criteria and was eligible).

Accordingly, we DENY the protest as to the allegations against Greenslade and find her eligible.

The Eligibility of Eric Mayervich

Mayervich confirmed that he bought a house in Saskatchewan about two years ago, which is about a 14-hour drive from the place he stays in Vancouver. However, he states that he only lives in Saskatchewan about 30-35% of the time, and the rest of the time he lives in Vancouver. He stated that when he stays in Vancouver, he stays in a friend’s basement. He said the last time he was in Vancouver was about 2 weeks ago, but he also stated that before that, he had stayed in Saskatchewan since his last job ended (November 10, 2025).

According to the dispatch records, Mayervich turned down four jobs during the Eligibility Period, three of which occurred on September 9, 2024. Beginning November 4, 2024, Mayervich’s preferences state that he is available for transport captain only.[7] Morris and Antoshchuk noted that Mayervich’s preferences severely limit his job opportunities but stated they did not know why he selected these preferences or why he didn’t work a lot during the Eligibility Period. As discussed further below, Mayervich denied having selective preferences.

The dispatch records for Mayervich show:

• Mayervich worked January 4, 2024 through March 3, 2024;
• On March 3, 2024 dispatcher Chris Radley changed Mayervich’s status to unavailable;
• On June 9, 2024, Mayervich either went into the system himself or called the dispatcher change his status to available;
• Mayervich worked June 10 - 15, 2024;
• Mayervich worked June 25 - August 22, 2024;
• Mayervich worked September 4-6, 2024;
• Mayervich changed his status to unavailable via a phone call[8] from September 13 - November 4, 2024, when he changed his status to available.[9] His status remained available;
• Mayervich worked August 18-November 10, 2025;
• On November 10, 2024, the dispatcher changed Mayervich’s status to unavailable after she was told by the captain of the production company for whom Mayervich was working that he was no longer working. About 20 minutes later, Mayervich called dispatch and asked that he be designated available. He has remained available since that time.

Mayervich states that when he was not working throughout the Eligibility Period it was because he did not get calls for work, not because he was unavailable or not willing to work. Mayervich claims that he does not know why he did not get calls and denies that he placed any unusual restrictions on the jobs he will take. We do not find him credible.

First, the dispatch records show (despite Mayervich’s statements) that he indisputably designated himself as unavailable from September 13, 2024 through November 4, 2024—almost two months during the Eligibility Period.[10] Pursuant to Local 155’s longstanding practice, this means that Mayervich was not available or actively seeking or accepting work from the craft during this time. In other words, by making himself unavailable in the dispatch system, Mayervich effectively removed himself from the referral list for work. See Eligibility of Tanksley, 2016 ESD 74 (January 17, 2016) (unemployed member did not lose continuous good standing under “work at the craft” requirement because he was on local union referral list, even though he limited the work he would accept to a specific industry, where eligibility rule does not require unemployed member to accept any and all work offered); Eligibility of Duncan, 2006 ESD 55 (January 26, 2006); see also Eligibility of McPartlin, 2011 ESD 79 (January 24, 2011), aff’d, 11 EAM 17 (February 11, 2011) (A member satisfies the working at the craft eligibility requirement if he is on a recall list with an employer under the local union’s jurisdiction). We also note that Mayervich designated himself unavailable not for just a few days but almost two months. See Eligibility of Wiggins, E-121 (March 18, 1996), aff’d, 96 EAM 151 (March 27, 1996) (finding member who did not actively seek employment under the local’s jurisdiction for 25 days, was not protected by that exception).

The dispatch records show that in addition to this period where Mayervich designated himself unavailable, he was designated unavailable for more than three months earlier in the Eligibility Period.[11] Mayervich, who is 35 years old, stated that he did not have strict preferences that would limit the job opportunities he was offered throughout the Eligibility Period but the records show that beginning in November 2024, his preferences were listed as only accepting one specific type of job—transport captain. This job, as confirmed by Morris and Antoshchuk significantly limits the available options for work. In addition to placing severe limitations on the jobs he would take, he moved about 14 hours away, making it impractical to take a job in the craft. He admits that he did not, at any point, attempt to find out why he was not getting calls for jobs even though he claims that he was willing to take them and despite not working from September 2024 through August 2025.[12] Finally, unlike Poirier, Mayervich stated that he had no physical limitations on the work he could do during the Eligibility period. Taking all of these facts into consideration, we find that Mayervich was not employed and was not actively seeking employment in the craft under the jurisdiction of Local 155 throughout the Eligibility Period. 

Accordingly, we find that Mayervich is ineligible and GRANT the protest as to the allegations against him.

The Eligibility of Brad Swannie

The dispatch records show Swannie was marked unavailable on February 27, 2021, by the dispatcher, Sandi White, not Swannie, when the captain confirmed that Swannie was no longer working the job, but Swannie did not update his status. He became available again on January 2, 2025. The dispatch records show that Swannie has been designated available throughout the Eligibility Period although the records show that he turned down 27 jobs during the Eligibility Period. The dispatch records show that Swannie worked the following times during the Eligibility Period.

• Ten days between March 24, 2024 through April 11, 2024;
• June 22-24, 2024;
• July 9-10, 2025;
• 87 days between July 14, 2025 and November 15, 2025; and
• October 1, 2025.

Swannie stated that he has had various medical conditions that have limited his physical ability to work certain jobs and that since 2022 he has received benefits from Worksafe, which, according to him, is the Canadian equivalent of workers’ compensation. Worksafe has determined that he is entitled to long-term disability relating to his decreased ability to work, and he has received monthly benefits from Worksafe throughout the entire Eligibility Period.

We have not been provided with any evidence to refute Swannie’s statements that he has been on workers compensation due to his illness and has retained reemployment rights for production companies through the dispatch system if he received sufficiently to return to work during the entirety of the Eligibility Period. Thus, like Greenslade, the local is prohibited from issuing him a withdrawal card and his employment at the craft is not interrupted. See IBT Constitution, Art. XVIII, Section 6(a); see also In re Eligibility of Edwin Taylor and James Price, Local Union 107, 2011 ESD 95 (Jan. 31, 2011).

Moreover, Swannie denied working outside the craft during the Eligibility Period. We do not have any evidence to refute these statements.

Accordingly, we DENY the protest as to the allegations against Swannie and find him eligible.

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 on 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 53

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

Courtney Tuckwood

ct.wood@shaw.ca

 

Larry Yampolsky

raincitytransport@live.ca

 

Lisa Greenslade

maltsforever@gmail.com

Brad Swannie

bswannie@shaw.ca

Barrie Poirier

fireball5@me.com

Eric Mayervich

ericmayervich@gmail.com

 

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@gmail.com

 

Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,

ed@hsglawgroup.com

 

David Suetholz

DSuetholz@teamster.org

 

Will Bloom

wbloom@dsgchicago.com

 

Ken Paff

ken@tdu.org

 

Thomas Kokalas

thomas.kokalas@bracewell.com

 

Timothy S. Hillman

thillman@ibtvote.org

 

Paul Dever

pdever@ibtvote.org

 

Ron Webne

rwebne@ibtvote.org

 

Jack Sullens

jsullens@ibtvote.org

 

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com