Eligibility of Eunice Elliot, 2026 ESD 42
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 42
IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF )
) Issued: February 13, 2026
EUNICE ELLIOT )
) OES Case No. E-057-012626
)
)
INTRODUCTION
Frank Perkins filed a pre-election protest 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 Eunice Elliott to run for delegate from Local Union 657. Perkins alleges that Elliott was on withdrawal from April 2025, through August 6, 2025, rendering her ineligible.
Ron Webne of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Article VI, Section 1(a) 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.
The nomination meeting for Local 657 took place on January 24, 2026. Thus, to be eligible, Elliott must have been in good standing with her dues paid for January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2025.
Mary Lou Chavez, the Secretary Treasurer of Local 647, said that based on her review of TITAN records, Elliott went on withdrawal on June 5, 2025. On August 6, 2025, Elliot called the TITAN operator to inform her that Elliot had returned to work in July 2025. Chavez sent copies of Local 647’s TITAN operator’s notes. There was an entry dated August 6, 2025, with the notation: “Per member phone call returned to work 07/2025.” Chavez also stated that Elliott did not pay dues for May or June 2025 because she did not work those months. Our review of TITAN records confirm Chavez’s statements. Specifically, TITAN shows that Elliott went on withdrawal on June 18, 2025, and that her withdrawal card was deposited on August 6, 2025—almost two months later. TITAN records also confirm that Elliott did not pay her dues for May or June 2025.
Perkins provided a document titled, “REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY WITHDRAWAL CARD” dated June 4, 2025 (“Withdrawal Request”). The Withdrawal Request is signed by Elliot and includes her address, phone number, employer, and the last four digits of her social security number. In the section where members provide the reason for the withdrawal request it states: “under a doctor’s care with restrictions.” The Withdrawal Request also has a stamp indicating it was received by Local 657 on June 5, 2025.[1] This is consistent with the TITAN records showing that Elliot requested withdrawal status in June.
Perkins also provided a document titled, “Official Receipt,” which also includes Elliott’s name and address and a notation “08-06-2025 WDC DEP.”[2] This Official Receipt is also consistent with the TITAN records showing that Elliot was removed from withdrawal status on August 6, 2025.
Elliot acknowledges that she went on withdrawal in June 2025, did not work in May or June 2025, and that she is familiar with and signed the Withdrawal Request. However, Elliot stated that she returned to work the first week in July 2025 and disputes that she requested to be removed from withdrawal in August. Rather, Elliot stated that she notified Chavez in July 2025 that she had returned to work.[3] Elliot said that at that time, Chavez told Elliot that she was behind in her dues but could catch up “a little at a time.” Elliot told Chavez she would pay it all at once.
The investigator explained that the TITAN records reflect a payment by Elliot on August 16, 2025, for $59.50, which appears to represent a full month’s dues rather than a deduction of dues for a single transaction (which is typically $14.75). The investigator also noted that based on the TITAN records, Elliot did not pay her dues for May or June 2025. When confronted with these TITAN records, Elliot acknowledged that it does not appear that she paid her dues for May or June 2025. She explained that when she spoke with Chavez, both she and Chavez assumed that she would not have to pay dues for those months. It was her understanding that the discussion with Chavez about being “behind” was about her July 2025 dues and not the two months’ dues that were forgiven because she was not working while on withdrawal. Elliot does not dispute that she did not pay dues for May or June 2025.
Because Elliott had insisted that she notified Local 657 that she had returned to work in July 2025, the investigator asked her to provide paystubs showing her earnings for work performed in June, July, and August 2025 as well as any documents that might confirm when she returned to work and when she notified Local 657 of the same. She declined to do so. Instead, Elliot stated that she now understands that she is not eligible, will “try again next time,” and considers the matter “resolved.” Said differently, Elliot no longer disputes that she is ineligible.
We find that Elliott was on withdrawal from June 5, 2025, to August 6, 2025, and that she did not pay her May or June dues. We make this determination based on the TITAN records, Withdrawal Request, and Official Receipt corroborating the TITAN records. We do not find that Elliot was uncooperative or not forthcoming but likely misremembered the timeline of these events. Accordingly, we find that is Elliot is ineligible to run for candidate in the delegate election and GRANT the protest against her.
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 in 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 42
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Eunice Elliot
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
Richard Hooker
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Ron Webne
Felicia Hardesty
kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com
[1] Although it does not affect our decision, we note that this date is sooner than the date TITAN reflects Elliott went on withdrawal.
[2] “WDC DEP” means withdrawal card deposited.
[3] The timing of when Elliot was removed from withdrawal status matters because of Article II, Section 4(a)(1) of the IBT Constitution, which states:
Provided, however, that if a member on withdrawal deposits the card in the month immediately following the month for which it was effective and pays dues for both months in a timely manner as provided in Article X, Section 5 (c), such period of withdrawal shall not be considered a break in continuous good standing in the Local Union.
Thus, under Article II, Section 4(a)(1), if Elliot had returned from withdrawal in July rather than August, she would not lose her continuous good standing based on her withdrawal status provided she paid her June and July 2025 dues in a timely manner. However, Elliot did not pay dues for June 2025 in a timely manner, or at all, and, in fact, did not pay her May dues. Thus, even if we were to find that Elliot’s withdrawal status was removed in July (we do not), she still would not meet the continuous good standing requirements.