2026 EAM 7

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2025 ESD 25 (“ESD 25”) was issued on December 31, 2025 (OES Case No. P-030-111125) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).   ESD 25 addresses a protest filed by Laura Newman, a member of Local 2010.  The protest alleged that the member ballots cast in Local 2010’s International delegate election were not submitted or maintained secretly in violation of Article II, Seciton 15 of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).      

             On December 31st, the Election Supervisor denied the protest.  On January 2nd, Ms. Newman appealed the decision.  On January 13th, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for January 21, 2026, which was subsequently rescheduled to January 22, 2026.              

A hearing by video conference was held on January 22, 2026.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Kelly Hogan and Deborah Schaaf on behalf of the OES; Laura Newman, Marianna Battiste and Jennifer Cruz on behalf of the Members First Slate; Jason Rabinowitz on behalf of Local 2010; and Catherine Burkhart on behalf of the UniLect Corporation (“UniLect”).

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

Background

            On November 3, 2025, ballots were printed and mailed to members of Local 2010 for its International delegate election.  Two slates were running in the election and, over the next month, ballots were returned by members in pre-printed envelopes to Post Office (“PO”) boxes maintained at the US Post Office.  On December 2, 2025, the ballots were collected from the PO boxes and counted by UniLect, an independent third-party provider hired by the union to administer Local 2010’s election.  Present at the ballot count were members of the OES staff, UniLect staff, outside counsel for Local 2010, as well as observers from both competing slates – the “Members First Slate” and the “Local 2010 Unity Slate.”

            Ms. Newman, a candidate in the delegate election on behalf of the Members First Slate, alleged that the pre-printed envelopes used to mail the ballots were transparent and did not sufficiently conceal a member’s identity such that anyone could see who they voted for.  In addition, the protest claimed that ballots stored at the Post Office prior to the election were not maintained confidentially.  Based on these allegations, the Election Supervisor conducted an investigation to determine whether the secrecy of member ballots submitted in Local 2010’s International delegate election was compromised.  In doing so, the Election Supervisor interviewed the protestors and members from each competing slate, personnel at the Post Office, the officers of Local 2010 and staff from UniLect.  The Election Supervisor also reviewed documentary evidence pertinent to the protest.

Determination

Article II, Section 15 of the Rules states:

Prohibition on Interference with Voting

No person or entity shall limit or interfere with the right of any IBT member to vote, including, but not necessarily limited to, the right to independently determine how to cast his/her vote, the right to mark his/her vote in secret and the right to mail the ballot himself/herself.  No person or entity may encourage or require an IBT member to mark his/her ballot in the presence of another person or to give his/her ballot to any person or entity for marking or mailing.

Id.  (emphasis in original).

As the Election Supervisor has determined in prior protest cases, “ballot secrecy guarantees the right of IBT members to vote independently, and is fundamental to a free and fair election untainted by corruption.”  Cheatem, POST 27-29-31-32-33-35-37-39-40-42-43-44-51 (August 21, 1997).  As such, allegations that ballot secrecy rules have been violated are taken seriously.  See In Re: Nuzzolilo, 2011 ESD 195 (2011); citing Berg, 2006 ESD 278 (May 30, 2006), aff'd, 06 EAM 46 (June 20, 2006); see also Pope, 2006 ESD 316 (June 30, 2006).      

The Election Supervisor’s thorough investigation revealed that returned ballots were maintained securely at the Post Office before they were collected by UniLect staff for the ballot count on election day.  Moreover, on the same day that the ballots were collected and counted, UniLect staff handled the ballots in full view of OES staff as well as observers from both slates, including the protestors.  Throughout the process, ballots remained sealed until the count began.  There is also no evidence that either prior to the election – or during the vote count – envelopes containing the ballots were manipulated to determine how members cast their vote.  In addition, the ballots themselves were handled by UniLect staff for the count.  Finally, the Election Supervisor’s own independent inspection of the ballot packages did not reveal that member votes could be viewed through the pre-printed envelopes.

Here, the investigation revealed that only authorized personnel had access to the ballots.  Moreover, steps were taken to preserve voter anonymity when ballots were removed and segregated from the return envelopes and counted.  Observers were present at the count and none objected to the steps UniLect staff used to preserve ballot secrecy.  Accordingly, there is no evidence that anyone limited or interfered with a member's right to independently determine how to cast their vote or mark their ballot in secret.

For these reasons, the appeal is DENIED.

SO ORDERED

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:         March 10, 2026
DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):