2026 EAM 8

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2026 ESD 27 (“ESD 27”) was issued on January 7, 2026 (OES Case Nos. P-031-111325) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).   ESD 27 addresses a protest regarding Brian Peyton’s failure to timely comply with the Election Supervisor’s remedial order issued in 2025 ESD 7 (“ESD 7”) in violation of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).      

             On January 7, 2026, the Election Supervisor granted the protest.  On January 9th, Mr. Peyton appealed the decision.  On January 13th, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for January 26, 2026.              

A hearing by video conference was held on January 26, 2026.  The following individuals attended the hearing: Kelly Hogan on behalf of the OES; Edward Gleason on behalf of the protestor in this matter, Dwayne Johnson; and Brian Peyton and his counsel, Jason R. Veny.

For the reasons set forth below, the appeal is DENIED. 

Determination

            Brian Peyton is the Secretary-Treasurer and principal officer of Local 322.  On October 9, 2025, the OES issued a decision finding that Mr. Peyton improperly retaliated against Dwayne Josnson for engaging in protected political activity in violation of Article VII, Section 12(g) of the Rules.  See Johnson, 2025 ESD 7 (October 9, 2025).  Peyton appealed that determination, however, on November 4, 2025, the decision was upheld in part.  See In Re: Johnson, 2025 EAM 2 (November 4, 2025).  As a remedy, the OES issued an order requiring Peyton to:

1. Immediately cease and desist from further retaliation in violating the Rules.
2. Post the notice attached hereto on all bulletin boards under Local 322’s jurisdiction and its website, www.teamsterslocal322.org, until January 11, 2026, notifying members of Peyton’s violation of the Rules.
3. Submit an affidavit attesting to his compliance with the remedies ordered above to the OES within five days of the issuance of this decision.

Id.  Two additional remedies that required Mr. Peyton to pay a $500 fine and have Local 322 reimburse certain expenditures paid for by Local 822 were denied on appeal.  Id. 

Based on these rulings, Mr. Peyton was required to post the required notices to all bulletin boards under Local 322’s jurisdiction and submit an affidavit attesting to his compliance beginning on October 9, 2025.  However, the OES found that Mr. Peyton failed to timely comply with these remedies and has now issued a $100 fine against him for his non-compliance.  On appeal, Mr. Peyton objects to the imposition of the fine claiming, among other things, that he believed that the remedy was stayed pending his appeal and, additionally, he was out on sick leave which prevented him from timely posting the required notices.

As noted above, the original ruling in ESD 7 was issued on October 9, 2025.  Pursuant to the Rules, unless a stay is granted, remedies must be complied with immediately.  See Article XIII, Section 4(w); see also See 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). 

However, even if it was unclear to Mr. Peyton that he was required to make the required postings during the pendency of the appeal in the original matter, he still did not timely comply with the remedy even after the appeal was decided on November 4, 2025.  Moreover, Mr. Peyton sought, and was granted, an extension to comply with the posting requirements until November 11, 2025.  By November 12, 2025, the notices still had not been posted at a variety of locations in Local 322’s jurisdiction.[1]  That is not sufficient compliance. 

In addition, the record does not support Mr. Peyton’s claim that his delay should be excused.  See Robertson, 2011 ESD 200 (April 4, 2011).  As principal officer for a local, Mr. Peyton has a responsibility to ensure compliance with the Election Supervisor’s remedies.  And, even if he was out on sick leave during the relevant time period, he had the authority to delegate the posting responsibility to others in order to meet the extended deadline.    

After carefully considering all the relevant facts and arguments submitted in this matter, I find a $100 fine is a reasonable and appropriate remedy.  See Leedham, 2001 EAD 409 (July 17, 2001).  Accordingly, the appeal is DENIED.

SO ORDERED

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         March 19, 2026
DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):