2026 EAM 13

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2026 ESD 51 (“ESD 51”) was issued on March 2, 2026 (OES Case No. E-086-022126) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).   ESD 51 addresses a protest filed by Rick Armstrong, President of Local 391, challenging the eligibility of Donovan Atkins to run for delegate pursuant to Article VI of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).

             On March 2nd, the Election Supervisor granted the protest and found that Mr. Atkins was ineligible to run as a delegate.  On March 4, 2026, Mr. Atkins appealed the decision.  On March 5, 2026, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for March 6, 2026.  On March 5, 2026, the Election Supervisor submitted supplemental written arguments in support of its position.

A hearing by video conference was held on March 6, 2026.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Kelly Hogan and Samuel Martin, on behalf of the OES; Donovan Atkins, on his own behalf; and Rick Armstrong on behalf of Local 391. 

At the time of the hearing on March 6, 2026, Local 391’s delegate election was imminent.  Accordingly, I issued a decision at the hearing on March 6th, DENYING the appeal. This written decision supplements my ruling issued at the hearing.

Determination

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, 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.[1]

In his protest, Mr. Armstrong alleged that Donovan Atkins failed to timely pay dues to Local 391 for the months of December 2024, January 2025, and February 2025, thereby causing a break in his continuous good standing.  As part of its investigation, the Election Supervisor reviewed the relevant TITAN records, dues check-off information, and Mr. Atkins’s paystubs, and also interviewed Local 391’s TITAN operator to verify his dues payment history.  Although the investigation confirmed that Mr. Atkins had sufficient wages to cover his January 2025 and February 2025 dues under the dues check-off provision, his December 2024 dues remained unpaid until February 14, 2025.[2]    

Under the Rules, continuous good standing requires that dues for each month within the twenty-four (24) consecutive-month period be paid no later than the last day of that month.  Based on its investigation, the Election Supervisor determined that Mr. Atkins’s failure to timely pay his December 2024 dues constituted a break in his payments, thereby rendering him ineligible to run as a delegate.

On appeal, as he did before the Election Supervisor, Mr. Atkins contends that he should remain eligible to run because he submitted a “Dues Waiver” form to Local 391 in or around December 2024, which obligated the Local to remit dues on his behalf.  Although Local 391’s by-laws provide for the payment of dues on behalf of members who are on leave, a member must submit the Dues Waiver form to the Local in order for it to process such payments.  While the record contains some evidence that Mr. Atkins requested and completed the form, Local 391 informed the Election Supervisor that it never received one from Mr. Atkins.  Mr. Atkins disputes this assertion, maintaining that he did, in fact, submit the form.  Mr. Atkins also contends on appeal that Local 391 was obligated to notify him that his December 2024 dues remained outstanding, which would have afforded him an opportunity to cure the deficiency and maintain his good standing.

The Election Supervisor’s determination was based upon all of the available evidence, including  interviews with Local 391’s TITAN operator, who confirmed that the form had not been received.  In his appeal, Mr. Atkins has not offered evidence sufficient to refute these findings, other than his assertion at the hearing that he saw his fiancée drop the Dues Waiver form off in the mail.  Here, the Election Supervisor credited the account of the TITAN operator over that of Mr. Atkins.  It is well established that the factual findings and credibility determinations of the Election Supervisor will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.  Hailstone & Martinez, 10 EAM 7 (September 14, 2010).  Although this is a high standard, such determinations must still be based on objective fact or observation and should be, at least briefly, justified.  See Richards, 00 EAM 4 (August 29, 2000).  Having reviewed the thorough investigation conducted by the Election Supervisor and the bases for its credibility determinations, I find no reason to disturb those findings.[3]

Mr. Atkins also contends on appeal, as he did during the underlying protest investigation, that the protest challenging his eligibility was untimely.  Under Article XIII, Section 2(b), protests must be filed within two (2) working days after a member knows or should have known of the basis for the protest.  Here, Mr. Armstrong’s protest was filed three (3) days beyond the prescribed deadline following the local’s nomination meeting, which occurred on February 14, 2026.  Notwithstanding the late filing, the Election Supervisor proceeded to address the merits of the eligibility challenge because each candidate, if ultimately elected, must be certified as eligible to serve as a delegate – a determination the Election Supervisor would have been required to make irrespective of whether a protest had been filed.  Accordingly, based on the circumstances presented here, I find this to have been a proper exercise of the Election Supervisor's discretion.  See Lytle, 11 EAM 51 (June 30, 2011).

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DENIED.

SO ORDERED

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         April 21, 2026
DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):