2026 EAM 11

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2026 ESD 43 (“ESD 43”) was issued on February 15, 2026 (OES Case No. P-052-012226) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).   ESD 43 addresses a protest filed by Spencer Hogue, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 222, challenging the eligibility of Dale Varney 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”).  Mr. Hogue further asserted that the candidates on the Independent Slate – the slate in which Mr. Varney is affiliated with – failed to comply with the nomination and slate declaration procedures set forth in the Rules and that all candidates on the slate should be stricken from the ballot.

             On February 15th, the Election Supervisor granted Mr. Hogue’s protest in part, finding that Mr. Varney was ineligible to run as a delegate.  The OES, however, determined that the candidates on the Independent Slate were properly nominated and that the slate’s declaration form did not violate the Rules.  On February 16, 2026, Mr. Varney appealed the eligibility determination and submitted a limited supplemental submission in support of his position that same day.  On February 17, 2026, Mr. Hogue appealed the determination with respect to the Independent Slate’s nominations and submitted several exhibits in support of his position.

On February 16, 2026, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for February 18, 2026.  On February 17, 2026, the Election Supervisor submitted supplemental written arguments in support of its position.

A hearing by video conference was held on February 18, 2026.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Kelly Hogan and Jim Devine, on behalf of the OES; Dale Varney, Deven Bugger, Riley Buchei, and Nicholas Reddan, on behalf of the Independent Slate; and Spencer Hogue, on behalf of Local 222.

At the time of the hearing on February 18th, Local 222’s delegate election was imminent.  Accordingly, I issued a decision at the hearing on February 18th, AFFIRMING the Election Supervisor’s decision in all respects.  This written decision supplements the ruling issued at that hearing.

Determination

1. Mr. Varney’s Eligibility

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

According to Mr. Hogue’s protest, Mr. Varney was ineligible to run for delegate in Local 222’s election because he had been suspended from the union and had a break in his continuous good standing.  In investigating the protest, the Election Supervisor reviewed Local 222's TITAN records and related documentation and determined that Mr. Varney was suspended from February 2, 2024 through January 3, 2025.  The suspension arose from disciplinary charges filed against Mr. Varney by Local 222’s Executive Board in 2022 for violating union rules governing general membership meetings.[1]  The resulting determination and suspension were appealed to both Joint Council 3 and the IBT General Executive Board (“GEB”), each of which upheld the decision.  Based on its review of the evidence, the OES concluded that Mr. Varney's suspension constituted a break in continuous good standing, rendering him ineligible under the Rules.

Mr. Varney does not dispute that he was suspended or that he experienced a break in continuous good standing.  On appeal, however, he contends that the 2022 disciplinary charges underlying his suspension were politically motivated and designed to prevent him from running in the delegate election.  Mr. Varney further argues that the Election Supervisor did not properly evaluate the underlying charges or consider whether the Executive Board of Local 222 – which includes Mr. Hogue – initiated those charges for the purpose of improperly removing a rival candidate from the electoral process.  Mr. Varney maintains that, given the facts and circumstances of his case, strict application of the eligibility requirements is not warranted and inconsistent with the overall fairness standards prescribed by the Rules.

In investigating the protest, the Election Supervisor reviewed information related to the disciplinary charges, including certain documentation of the underlying conduct, which occurred in 2022, over four years before the present delegate election.  Although the charges were substantiated by Local 222 and upheld, in part, by Joint Council 3 and the GEB, the Election Supervisor found no evidence to refute those determinations or to support a finding that the disciplinary action was undertaken as a pretext to disqualify a political opponent.  To convert an internal union disciplinary proceeding into what is effectively a claim of improper retaliation under the Rules, some affirmative evidence of bad faith is required.  Based on the record before me, no such showing has been made.  Accordingly, Mr. Varney’s break in continuous good standing resulting from his suspension renders him ineligible to run as a delegate.

1. The Independent Slate’s Nomination and Declaration Forms

Article II, Section 5(f) of the Rules, which governs the nomination of candidates, provides in pertinent part:

Any member eligible to nominate or second a nomination may do so by a writing submitted to the Local Union Secretary-Treasurer.  The writing shall state whether it is a nomination or a second, the name of the member being nominated or seconded, and whether the nomination or second is for delegate or alternate delegate.  It shall be signed by the member submitting the nomination or second and shall provide his/her complete mailing address.

            To facilitate compliance with these procedures, the Election Supervisor created official forms for use in submitting nominations and seconds.  See Election Supervisor Forms 4 (“Candidate Information Sheet”) and 44 (“Written Nomination, Second or Acceptance”).  These forms are used to identify the candidates on a slate, the members nominating each candidate, and the members seconding each nomination.  The Independent Slate completed and submitted these forms to Mr. Hogue, in his capacity as Secretary-Treasurer, prior to Local 222's nomination meeting.  In addition, the Independent Slate completed Form 10 (the “Slate Declaration Form"), which identified all candidates intended to appear on the ballot, including Mr. Varney.

            In his protest, Mr. Hogue pointed out that the Independent Slate failed to properly complete Form 44 because a portion of the form did not identify the member nominating the candidate.  Additionally, Mr. Hogue contended that the inclusion of Mr. Varney on the Slate Declaration Form was improper because the Independent Slate knew, or should have known, that he was ineligible to run given his suspension, and that by listing him, the Independent Slate exceeded the number of delegate candidates it was authorized to nominate under its allotted slots.  Mr. Hogue argued that the omission on Form 44 and the inclusion of Mr. Varney on Form 10 were intentional and constituted evidence of the Independent Slate’s attempt to undermine and disrupt the electoral process.  On this basis, Mr. Hogue sought to have all candidates on the Independent Slate stricken from the ballot.

            As the Election Supervisor correctly determined in ESD 43, protests seeking to disqualify candidates for technical violations such as those at issue here have been consistently denied where such a sanction would not serve the underlying purpose of the Rules – namely, to ensure a fair, open, and informed election.  See Slawson, 2001 EAD 81 (January 17, 2001); Sather, P498 (March 5, 1996).  Here, the instructions on Form 44 are, at best, ambiguous, as they direct candidates to complete only one of the available options for submitting nominations and acceptances.  The fact that the Independent Slate left the nominating member field blank on Form 44 does not warrant striking its candidates from the ballot.  This is particularly so given that Form 4, which was submitted in conjunction with Form 44, identifies the nominator for each candidate.  Indeed, at the time of the nomination meeting, Local 222 and Mr. Hogue were aware of which members were nominating each candidate based on all the records that were submitted.  Given these facts, the Election Supervisor properly exercised its discretion in denying this claim.

            The same conclusion applies to the Slate Declaration Form.  Only the OES has the authority to determine a candidate’s eligibility under the Rules.  At the time the Independent Slate submitted the form, no determination regarding Mr. Varney's eligibility had yet been made, and the slate listed him in the event he was found eligible.  Although the inclusion of Mr. Varney on the form resulted in the listing of more candidates than the number authorized on Form 10, Mr. Hogue’s contention that this circumstance undermined the democratic process and warrants the severe sanction of striking all candidates from the ballot is without merit.

            That said, at the hearing before me, once a final determination regarding Mr. Varney’s eligibility was rendered, his name was ordered stricken from the ballot and, accordingly, did not appear on it.

            For all of the foregoing reasons, ESD 43 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         April 15, 2026
DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):