Hicks, 2026 ESD 57
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
James Hicks, ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 57
) Issued: March 9, 2026
Protestor. )
) OES Case No. P-108-030426
INTRODUCTION
James Hicks 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”) against Shana Thompson alleging that Thompson improperly disqualified him as a candidate at the nomination meeting in violation of Article II, Section 5(f) of the Rules.
OES representative Felicia Hardesty investigated this protest. Protestor Hicks, Shana Thompson, and Robert Hanson were interviewed. We also reviewed the nomination forms submitted that are the subject of this protest.
BACKGROUND
BLET 740 held its nomination meeting on February 27, 2026. Shana Thompson, BLET 740’s administrative assistant, conducted the meeting. Hicks submitted a Form 44 Written Nomination, Second or Acceptance - IBT Delegate Elections form (“Form 44”) to run for delegate in BLET 740’s delegate election before the nomination meeting. However, the Form 44 he submitted was incorrectly filled out. The Form 44 listed both Hicks’s nominator, Robert Hanson, and seconder, Tim Combs, on Hicks’s written acceptance form. Thus, Hicks’s signature is the only signature on the Form 44 he submitted to nominate and second him as a candidate. Combs also submitted a Form 44 for alternate delegate in the same manner. In other words, Combs’s Form 44 lists his nominator and seconder on Combs’s acceptance form, which contains only Combs’s signature. Hanson is not running as a candidate and did not sign any forms submitted. Hanson stated that he remembers filling out the forms but does not remember signing anything.
At the nomination meeting, Thompson reviewed the forms and determined that because the Form 44’s we improperly filled out including, but not limited to, the lack of signature by Robert Hanson, Hicks was not properly nominated. Hick, Hanson, and Combs were not present at the nomination meeting.
APPLICATION LAW & ANALYSIS
Article II Section 5(f) of the Rules governing the nomination and elections of delegates and alternate delegates provides the following:
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. The submitting individual may also choose to provide the last four digits of his/her Social Security number. At the nomination meeting, the presiding Local Union officer shall announce and treat a written nomination or second as if it had been made from the floor of such meeting. The Election Supervisor may separately request a nominator, seconder, or candidate to provide the last four digits of his/her Social Security number directly to the Office of the Election Supervisor to verify eligibility.
In other words, pursuant to the Rules, written nominations and seconds must: (1) be submitted to the local union secretary treasurer; (2) state whether it is a nomination or second; (3) state the name of the member being nominated or seconded, (4) be signed by the member submitting the nomination or second; and (5) provide his/her mailing address. Rules, Art. II, Section 5(f).
Here, it is undisputed that Hicks submitted a Form 44 acceptance that he signed but did not submit a signed nomination or second. As set forth above, the Rules require that written nominations “shall be signed by the member submitting the nomination or second[.] Rules, Art. II, Section 5(f). We find the facts presented here to be analogous to the facts in Lee, 2000 EAD 31 (Oct. 2, 2000), aff’d, 00 EAM 10 (KC) (Oct. 25, 2000), where the Election Administrator found six candidates were not properly nominated because their nomination forms did not include the signature of their nominators or seconders. The Election Administrator rejected the argument that such errors should be excused because of inexperience with union politics and the Rules emphasizing that “[e]very member has the responsibility of making sure that he/she is familiar with the Rules.” Id. He explained:
In this case, the requirement that a nominator and a seconder actually sign his or her own written nomination/second of a candidate, in lieu of appearing and nominating or seconding in person, is integral to the fairness and integrity of the process itself. Without it, there would be no way of ensuring that a candidate was actually nominated or seconded by the particular member listed on the writing.
Id. While we have found a technical violation of the express language of the Rules did not further the purpose of the Rules under certain circumstances, such circumstances do not exist here. Detrimental to this protest is the fact that, here, Hanson, the nominator, did not sign any form submitted.[1] For example, in Hogue, 2026 ESD 43 (Feb. 15, 2026), we denied the protest requesting disqualification of all candidates on a slate despite the fact that each candidate did not submit signed nominations and seconds (like Hicks failed to do so here). Crucially, and in contrast to the facts of this case, all nominators and seconders for each of the candidates on that slate were also candidates and in addition to each signing the Form 44 acceptance, they each submitted a Form 4 with the required candidate, nominator and seconders information, and a Form 10 slate declaration with each candidate’s signature. We determined that, taken together, these forms provided all of the required information and signatures for each candidate, nominator and seconder. Consistent with the purpose of the Rules, we must find Hicks’s nomination invalid. Here, it is undisputed that Hanson did not sign the Form 44 (or any other form submitted).
Accordingly, we find that Thompson properly determined that Hicks was not properly nominated and we DENY this protest.
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
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
2026 ESD 57
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
James R. Hicks
Shana Thompson
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Felicia Hardesty
Kelly Hogan
[1] Combs did not file a protest concerning Thompsons determination that he was also disqualified because he was not properly nominated for alternate delegate. As discussed above, Combs submitted a similarly deficient Form 44 that did not contain Hanson’s signature although Hanson was to be Combs’s seconder (whereas he was Hicks’s nominator).