Palmer & Fearless Slate, 2026 ESD 64
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: PALMER AND )
FEARLESS SLATE ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 64
)
Protestor. ) Issued: April 8, 2026
)
) OES Case No. P-029-111125
INTRODUCTION
John Palmer is a candidate on the Fearless Slate and is running for General Secretary-Treasurer for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). In November 2025, Palmer filed a pre-election protest against the OZ Slate on behalf of himself and Fearless Slate. Palmer claims that (a) Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) improperly excluded union members from its convention, and (b) the OZ Slate accepted campaign contributions in the form of financial support and endorsement from employers and union entities in violation of Section XI of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union and Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”). As detailed below, we DENY in part and GRANT in part the protest. Further, as also explained below, as part of our general authority to ensure free and fair elections, we order TDU to take immediate action to ensure continued compliance with the Rules.
OES Investigator Joe F. Childers investigated this protest.
PROTEST
On November 7-9, 2025, TDU held its annual Convention in Chicago, Illinois. TDU invited Sean O’Brien, current General President of IBT and candidate for re-election on the OZ Slate, to address Convention attendees and, according to Palmer, solicit its endorsement. Richard Hooker, the Fearless Slate candidate for General President, requested the same opportunity to speak at the Convention; however, TDU leadership denied that request.
Palmer’s protest appears two-fold. First, Palmer argues that TDU management engaged in disparate treatment of Teamster members. According to Palmer, TDU actively excluded non-OZ Slate supporters from attending the Convention. As a result, TDU management ensured that the OZ Slate would receive TDU’s endorsement without significant opposition.
Second, Palmer assails the relationship between TDU and Teamsters Rank and File Education and Legal Defense Fund (TRF). Palmer argues that TDU and TRF constitute “at least joint employers,” therefore, any campaign contribution to the OZ Slate received from TDU would violate the Rules. In support of his claim that TDU and TRF are joint employers, Palmer points to the fact that TDU’s 2023 IRS filings identified $2,307 in “Employee Compensation,” $70,139 in “Other Salaries,” $26,637 in “Payroll Taxes,” and $7,958 in “Other Employee Benefits.”[1] Palmer further emphasizes that TDU and TRF share a common Director and Boards, have intertwined financial arrangements, and, according to Palmer, equally allocate employee expenses.[2]
Although the definition of “employer” specifically excludes a caucus of union members, Palmer correctly asserts that the caucus must be funded exclusively by contributions from members eligible to make such contributions. Palmer argues that payments to TRF by local unions derived from members’ dues that were used without members’ knowledge or expectation that a portion would be used to finance TDU’s political activities. In short, Palmer argues that TRF’s “practice of paying a portion of TDU’s operational costs under the guise of shared expenses effectively underwrites the latter’s political activities.”
INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS
- TDU’S Alleged Exclusion of Fearless Slate Supporters
Palmer’s first complaint, that TDU management actively excluded non-OZ Slate supporters from attending the Convention can be dispatched without further investigation.
Even if what he alleges is accurate, it is not a violation of the Election Rules for a campaign organization or member caucus to limit attendance or participation in their meetings to individuals who share their beliefs or objectives. See, e.g., Vargas, 2025 ESD 3, citing Konowe, P-008-LU632-NYC (October 29, 1990) (finding individuals required to leave TDU meeting had no claim to Rules violation).
In 1996, the Election Officer concluded that members gathered for a TDU meeting had a right under the Rules to limit their meeting to individuals who shared their electoral beliefs or objectives. “If a member or candidate does not wish to associate with another member or candidate…, various sections of the Rules protect that wish.” Baudo, P-680-LU344-SCE (April 3, 1996, p. 2). Freedom of association is a fundamental political right included in the basic guarantee of the Rules that “[a]ll union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities. Thus, members have the right to associate with like-minded members and to exclude others if they choose.” Rudolph, P-861-TDU-PNW (August 29, 1996, p. 4, citing Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (August 16, 1996)); See also Richards, 2000 EAD 27 (September 27, 2000); Zuckerman, 2015 ESD 7 (July 15, 2015).
- TDU and the Huddleston System
In order to address Palmer’s second complaint, that TDU and TRF effectively constitute “joint employers” as a result of their intertwined staff and finances, it is necessary to first detail Election Office precedent previously assessing that relationship.
The Election Office first examined the relationship between TDU and TRF in 1991. In Sargent, the protestor alleged that TDU constituted a labor organization prohibited from making campaign contributions. As is the case here, the protest further claimed that TDU was an “alter ego” of TRF based on shared employees, shared facilities, and the fact that several IBT members sat on the governing boards of both organizations.
The Election Officer determined that TDU constituted a member caucus within the meaning of the Rules, a determination that was subsequently affirmed by the Election Appeals Master. Sargent, P-249 (May 21, 1991). The Election Officer noted that “[m]embership in TDU is open to all IBT members and their spouses, however the organization reserves the right to exclude those who are opposed to TDU or its principles.” Id. at 30. The Election Officer sanctioned the structure and relationship of TDU and TRF conditioned upon the understanding that “to the extent that TDU engages in activities that advance the nomination or election of a candidate, such activities must be exclusively funded by contributions permitted by the Election Rules.” Id. at 31; see also Gully, 91 EAM 158 (June 12, 1991).
To ensure that funds used for campaign activity were derived only from appropriate sources, the Election Officer in Sargent approved the use of the Huddleston System, a timekeeping and allocation system historically used by labor organizations to segregate union and non-union expenses. In the context of TDU/TRF, the Huddleston System was used to segregate IBT member funds used for campaign activities from other revenues, and to allocate its costs between permitted campaign activities and other non-campaign activities. TDU must periodically determine the percentage of overhead and time spent by shared staff on campaign activity and reimburse TRF for these resources from permitted campaign contributions. Notably, the Election Appeals Master found that strict adherence is required to ensure compliance and found Rules violations based on TDU’s delayed payments to TRF for expenses incurred the month prior and described that delay as akin to TRF providing TDU with an interest-free line of credit. Sargent at 34.
- Confirmation of Continued Compliance Required
Four years after Sargent, the Election Officer again addressed the TDU/TRF relationship and the source of campaign contributions. Halberg, 95 EAM 20 (October 3, 1995). The Election Appeals Master remanded the Election Officer’s initial denial of the protest, finding the investigation deficient because the Election Officer simply relied upon TDU’s past allocations as evidence that TDU was currently complying with the Huddleston System. Specifically, the Election Appeals Master stated:
However, that [Sargent] decision, which addressed the relationship between TDU and TRF more than four years ago, cannot, standing alone, support the factual finding made by the Election Officer in the instant case…. The Election Officer must make at least a preliminary inquiry into the current relationship between TDU and TRF in order to determine whether both organizations still utilize the “Huddleston System” for allocating campaign expense.
Halberg, 95 EAM at 4-5.
On remand, the Election Officer performed an audit of TDU that confirmed the continued use of the Huddleston allocation system. That audit included review of employee daily time sheets and weekly summaries to calculate a “TDU percentage” upon which salaries, benefits, and overhead expenses were paid. It also included a sampling of current activity reports and examination of records evidencing payments made by TDU to TRF to ensure they were timely or included “accrued-interest” fees if not made before or at the time the expense was incurred. Halberg, 95 EAM at 5. The Election Officer determined upon conclusion of that audit in 1995 that TDU and TRF were in compliance with the requirements established in Sargent.
The Election Office was again called upon to address the TDU/TRF relationship in 2000. In Taylor, the protester claimed that TDU was contributing to the opposition campaign while simultaneously receiving monies from TRF, effectively “fronting TRF’s involvement in the election process.” 2000 EAD 40. Heeding the mandate of the Election Appeals Master to confirm current compliance with the Huddleston System, the Election Officer followed the “investigatory path” utilized upon remand in Sargent to guide its inquiry. It confirmed TDU/TRF’s continued use of daily time sheets to track staff activity, including separation of election and non-election activities to establish the percentage to be apportioned to each entity. The audit also confirmed TDU’s timely payments to TRF, including TDU’s use of a “Special Operating Account” funded only by permissible campaign contribution sources to reimburse TRF for election-related activities. Finally, the audit confirmed that rental payments made by TDU to TRF for the shared space was appropriate in comparison to surrounding real estate.
The Election Office most recently approved the continued use of the Huddleston System in 2006. Hoffa, 2006 ESD 180. In response to that protest, which included several specific examples of alleged violations, forensic accountants engaged by the Election Officer audited TDU. That audit confirmed that TDU had performed the allocation of funding required by the Rules and maintained the records necessary to support the calculations and allocation. Id. at 7.
- Audit of TDU’s Current Compliance
Unlike in Hoffa, the protest here does not include specific examples of alleged violations. Palmer attacks the TDU/TRF relationship generally, arguing that the Election Supervisor should abandon thirty-five years of precedent identifying TDU as an independent committee and, instead, find it to constitute a “joint employer.” The Election Supervisor declines that invitation.
Instead, pursuant to Halberg guidance, the Election Supervisor retained an independent forensic accounting firm to audit TDU’s employee timekeeping records and banking records to determine whether TDU has faithfully complied with the requirements of the Huddleston System. That auditing firm, GRF CPA’s and Advisors (“GRF”), spent several months examining the records of the OES and TDU/TRF. As explained in the Executive Summary of GRF’s report:
The Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”), . . . engaged GRF CPAs & Advisors (“GRF”) to provide audit support in connection with matters raised concerning the financial and operational relationship between Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”) and the Teamsters Rank and File Legal Defense Fund (“TRF”). These services were requested in response to a protest submitted November 11, 2025 regarding compliance with the accounting and cost‑allocation requirements commonly referred to as the “Huddleston System,” as articulated in prior OES decisions, including Sargent (1991), Halberg (1995), and Taylor (2000).
TDU and TRF are separate legal entities that share certain operational resources, including office space, personnel, and administrative infrastructure. Under applicable OES guidance, when related entities share resources, costs associated with campaign‑related activity must be clearly identified, properly allocated, and reimbursed contemporaneously or in advance to avoid the use of impermissible funds or the extension of unauthorized credit.
GRF examined the records of TDU/TRF for the period June 2025 through December 31, 2025, as well as Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Reports (CCERS) maintained by OES for the same time period. GRF used the CCERS to determine allocation percentages of campaign and non-campaign activities and then examined banking records of TDU and TRF to determine if the banking records aligned with the CCERS. The primary purpose of the audit was to determine if TDU, which engages in campaign activity, properly reimbursed TRF for expenditures made in support of TDU’s campaign activity. GRF necessarily examined the personnel records of both organizations to determine whether staff was properly allocating time spent on election versus non-election-related matters. The Huddleston system relies on allocation of staff time between campaign and non-campaign activity to determine the proper allocation of not only labor expenses but also overhead and infrastructure expenses. In other words, it is extremely important that the organizations keep proper records of staff time for allocation purposes.
In November 2025, TDU held its convention. Examination of the books and records of TDU/TRF included a detailed examination of the staff time, receipts, and expenditures related to the convention, a matter of particular concern to the protestor. GRF also examined the broader financial relationship between the two organizations.
Allocation and Delayed Reimbursement Payments
GRF examined daily time sheets, weekly summaries and activity reports to determine whether staff time was properly allocated between campaign and non-campaign activities. The auditors also examined timing of reimbursements by TDU to TRF and non-campaign accounts maintained by TDU in order to determine if TRF was subsidizing the campaign activity by use of improper funds. Finally, GRF examined the books and records to determine if there were any shortcomings in record keeping.
As to the timing of reimbursements, the auditors found:
[S]ignificant delays between the dates expenses were incurred and the dates reimbursement payments were issued, with delays ranging from approximately 20 to 175 days.
This failure to timely reimburse for campaign expenses was found by GRF to be a “high-risk” matter. This is consistent with prior decisions which require timely reimbursement (or advance payment) of such expenses paid from appropriate funds in order to avoid an improper interest free line-of-credit. As recommended by the auditors, to prevent untimely reimbursement by TDU in the future, TDU “should establish a documented reimbursement timeline or payment standard consistent with Huddleston System requirements and implement monitoring procedures to track the timeliness of reimbursements.”
Most of the payment delays involved relatively small amounts of reimbursements. However, allocation of time and expenses for the convention held in November 2025 involved significantly larger amounts. All of the reimbursements from TDU to the non-campaign accounts of TRF and TDU, based on allocations between June and November, were made in December 2025, after this protest was filed. We find this to be in violation of the Huddleston System requirements that reimbursements be made timely or in advance. GRF determined that an interest rate of 4.77% was appropriate, based on 20-year U.S. Treasury constant rate. Applying this interest rate to delayed payments, TDU will be required to reimburse TRF $161.95 from its campaign account to reflect interest on delayed payments.
In addition, as found by GRF, TDU is ordered as follows:
Campaign Administration should establish a documented reimbursement timeline or payment standard consistent with Huddleston System requirements and implement monitoring procedures to track the timeliness of reimbursements. Where delays occur, management should document the rationale and assess whether interest or advance funding mechanisms are required.
Inter-Entity Transfers
GRF also reviewed available bank statements to identify transfers between TDU and TRF which were not captured in CCERS. Five transactions totaling $20,448.64 were identified involving TDU campaign-related accounts. Four of the five payments, totaling $934.01, were payments made from TDU to TRF. The fifth transaction, a large deposit of $19,514.62 on December 31, 2025, was a payment from TRF to TDU’s campaign-related account. Investigation revealed that this resulted from 68 TDU Convention registration fees incorrectly deposited into the TRF account rather than the TDU campaign account. During registration, attendees had the option of choosing whether their registration fees should go to campaign-related accounts or not. However, the software system used for registration only permitted fees to be deposited into one account. After reconciliation, these fees allocated to campaign activities were deposited into the TDU campaign-related account. As found by the auditors:
Campaign Administration should strengthen controls over inter‑entity financial activity by formalizing procedures to document, approve, and reconcile corrective or inter‑account transfers, including clear linkage to underlying transactions and CCERS entries. To reduce reliance on corrective transfers and enhance compliance with segregation requirements, management should further decouple the financial operations and payment processing of TRF and TDU‑election activities through the use of distinct accounts, platform configurations, and approval workflows designed to reduce the risk of commingling or misdirection of funds. Periodic reviews of third‑party payment platform settings and maintenance of a centralized log of inter‑entity transfers would further improve transparency and oversight.
TDU is ordered to comply with the directives of the auditors.
Both delayed reimbursement payments and inter-entity transfers were classified as “high risk” by GRF. These matters should be addressed immediately.
Medium and Low Risk Findings
GRF examined a sample of records of employees across all allocation periods to determine if proper allocation was made between campaign activity and non-campaign activity. While minor discrepancies were found to exist, the monies involved was de minimis. As a result, it is the conclusion of the auditors and OES that the allocations made for the relevant time period were accurate in allocating labor and other expenses between campaign expenses and non-campaign expenses. However, as found in the audit, TDU is directed as follows:
Campaign Administration should enhance controls over timesheet preparation and allocation calculations by implementing standardized guidance for the treatment of “Off” time, requiring documented support for all manual adjustments, and performing periodic reviews to validate consistency between timesheets and allocation worksheet
In addition, TDU should enhance the documentation of its supervisory review of timesheets and summaries to reflect that such oversight is actually occurring.
Finally, GRF examined banking and other records to determine if reimbursement of office rent by TDU for campaign activities was reasonable. The finding was that the payment of office rent was reasonable based on the allocation methods utilized. As far as the protestor’s unsupported allegation that TDU used funds supplied by local unions for campaign activities, which would constitute an illegal campaign contribution, no evidence of such contributions was found.
FINDING AND REMEDY
When the Rules have been violated, the Election Supervisor “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor considers the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interference with the election process.
ACCORDINGLY, the Election Supervisor DENIES in part and GRANTS in part the protest, as follows:
(1) As to the alleged exclusion by TDU management of members not supportive of the OZ Slate, the Election Supervisor DENIES that portion of the protest;
(2) As to claim that TDU constitutes a joint employer or “alter ego” of TRF and therefore, impermissibly has used Union funds to support or oppose candidates, the Election Officer DENIES that portion of the protest;
(3) As to the finding that TDU has not strictly complied with its obligation to make timely reimbursement to TRF for staff resources or expenses, effectively resulting in an interest free line-of-credit, the Election Supervisor GRANTS that portion of the protest and orders that TDU make payment of $161.95 to the appropriate non-campaign accounts within 14 days of the date of this decision.
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
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
John Palmer
Richard Hooker
James Donovan, Jr.
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Will Bloom,
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.)
Paul Dever
Greg Friedholm
Joe Childers
Kelly Hogan
[1] Palmer states that “additional expenditures of $107,041 were recorded as ‘Salaries, Compensation, Employee Benefits’.” In reality, $107,041 appears to be the total of the sub-categories identified above and not additional expenditures.
[2] In its 2023 IRS filing, TRF identified aggregate payments of $709,222 as “Salaries, Compensation, and Benefits.” It is unclear how that figure – 662% greater than the TDU expenditure – constitutes “an equal allocation of employee expenses.”