Brown, 2026 ESD 68
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: GARY BROWN ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 68
)
) Issued: April 17, 2026
)
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-064-020126
)
INTRODUCTION
Gary Brown, member of Local 385 and candidate on the Teamsters United! for Stronger Contracts slate in Local 385’s delegate election filed this protest. Two slates were nominated for Local 385’s delegate election; the Teamsters United! for Stronger Contracts slate and the 385 Teamsters United slate. Following the nomination meeting on January 31, 2026, Brown alleges that members of the 385 Teamsters United slate took a photograph holding campaign signs in front of a union semi-trailer truck that prominently displays “Teamsters Local 385” in the union hall parking lot (the “Photograph”). The Photograph was then posted on the Local 385 Teamsters United website, captioned “Vote/385 Teamsters United.”
Felicia Hardesty of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest. The investigation included an interview of the protestor, John Gildroy and Sean Mason, both candidates on the 385 Teamsters United slate, and Walt Howard the President of Local 385. Additionally, the investigation included review and analysis of all materials submitted in connection with this investigation including the Photograph.
BACKGROUND
Following the nomination meeting, members of the 385 Teamsters United slate took the Photograph and posted it on the Local 385 Teamsters United website, captioned “Vote/385 Teamsters United.” The semi-trailer truck the members are campaigning in front of in the Photograph is a union vehicle that was purchased with union funds and has been the property for Local 385 for approximately 2.5 years, and sits in the parking lot.
Following the filing of this protest Mason[1] contacted Hardesty and stated that he would remove the Photograph from the 305 Teamsters United website if the protestor agreed to retract the protest. Accordingly, on February 4th, Mason removed the Photograph from the website, and later that day, Brown sent an email to the investigator withdrawing the protest. However, on February 6th, Mason called the investigator and stated that he had been advised that using the Local 385 semi-trailer truck in the campaign Photograph was not a violation, and he was going to repost the Photograph to the website, which he did.
APPLICABLE RULES & ANALYSIS
Article VII, Section 12 of the Rules governs the freedom to exercise political rights. Specifically, Article VII, Section 12(a) provides that:
All Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to distribute campaign literature (and otherwise to solicit support for a member's candidacy) outside a meeting hall before, during and after a Union meeting, regardless of Union policy, rule or practice.
Article VII, Section 12(b) states:
All Union officers and employees, if members, retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, openly to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions. However, such campaigning must not involve the expenditure of Union funds. Accordingly, officers and employees (and other members) of the Union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the Union. Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, a violation of this section. Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not a violation of this section. An endorsement of a candidate may be made by a Union officer or employee, but solely in his/her individual capacity. The Union or a Local Union as such or the General Executive Board or an Executive Board of a Local Union as such may not endorse or otherwise advance a candidacy, even if all members agree on the endorsement or candidacy.
(emphasis added).
Article VII, Section 12(c) states that “[u]nion funds, facilities, equipment, stationary, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigning unless the Union is reimbursed at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are notified in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance.”
Article XI governs campaign contributions and disclosures including, improper endorsements. As applicable here, Article XI, Section 1(b)(3) states:
No labor organization, including but not limited to the International Union, Local Unions and all other subordinate Union bodies, whether or not an employer, may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate, except as permitted by subparagraphs (5) and (6) below. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by a labor organization and include contributions and use of the organization's stationery, equipment, facilities, and personnel.
(emphasis added).
Under Article XI, Section 1(b)(6):
No Union funds or other things of value shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual. Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigns unless the Union is compensated at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided with equal access to such assistance and are advised in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance. The use of the Union's official stationery with the Union's name, insignia, or other mark identifying the Union is prohibited, irrespective of compensation or access. Other use of the Union's name, insignia, or mark by Union members, in connection with the exercise of rights under these Rules, is permitted.
(emphasis added).
The protester alleges that 385 Teamsters United’s conduct constitutes improper use of union resources or equipment and an improper endorsement by the local in violation of Article VII, Section 12(b) and Article XI, Sections 1(b)(3) and (6) of the Rules. William Bloom, counsel representing the 385 Teamsters United slate in response to this protest, disagrees. Bloom argues that under Article VII, Section 12(a), the 385 Teamsters United slate is permitted to campaign outside the union hall including taking a photograph with their campaign signs in the parking lot outside of the union hall in front of the semi-trailer truck. Moreover, he argues that because the union semi-trailer truck was parked in the parking lot outside the union meeting hall, and has been for years, that all candidates of each slate had equal access to it, therefore, the 395 Teamsters United slate use of the union vehicle in the back of the Photograph does not violate the Rules. See Rules, Article XI, Section 1(b)(6).
Union funds, resources, and equipment cannot be used to assist with campaigning unless the union is reimbursed at fair market value for such assistance and all candidates are provided equal access and advance notice. Precedent shows that improper use of union equipment in violation of the Rules includes use of union computers, phones, paper, vehicles, canopies, or podiums to assist with campaigning. See e.g., Aloise & Hoffa-Keegel 2011, 2010 ESD 22 (Aug. 27, 2010) (use of union equipment to translate campaign materials, reproduce and revise petitions, and create other campaign materials violated the Rules); Smith & Leedham Slate, 2006 ESD 395 (Nov. 12, 2006) (holding that “using union facilities, i.e., the podium at a union meeting, to make the endorsement under circumstances where no other candidate or candidate representative had notice, express or implied, that political speech would be permitted in that forum” violated Article VII, Section 12(c)); Vargas, 2025, ESD 3 (Aug. 28, 2025) (use of a union truck, canopy, and tables to campaign was a violation of the Rules); see also Ostrach, 2000 EAD 29 (Oct. 2, 2000)[2] (discussing how the Rules incorporate several provisions of the LMRDA).
The facts of this case are distinguishable. Although it is undisputed that the semi-trailer truck in the Photograph is a union vehicle, it has been sitting in the parking lot for two years, use of the vehicle in the Photograph did not expend union funds, and it was equally available to all candidates.
In O’Brien-Zuckerman 2021, 2020 ESD 7 (July 15, 2020), the Election Supervisor held that the presence of the “‘share’ button in conjunction with the photo of the business agents on the local’s public Facebook page established that all Facebook users, candidates included, may share the photo and its accompanying source information into their own timelines without compensation to the union, and it also serves as the ‘advance written notice’ of availability that the rule requires.” (citing Laszlo, 2011 ESD 87 (January 27, 2011) (holding that because photos published on the IBT website were accessible to all candidates, use of the photos without compensation to the union did not violate Article XI, Section 1(b) prohibiting candidates from using union-owned “things of value” unless the union has given advance written notice of the availability of them for campaign use and is compensated for their fair market value).
Applying that same principle here, the semi-trailer truck has been sitting in that parking lot available for all candidates to take photographs with for years. Thus, even being a “thing of value” to the local, the 385 Teamsters Union slate’s photograph in front of it was not a violation of Article XI, Section 1(b).
Additionally, the use of a union logo on materials that are obviously campaign materials has been found not to violate the rules. See P-541-LU420-CLA (Feb. 22, 1991), aff’d 91-Elec. App.-87[3] (determining that the use of official Union insignia on materials that are obviously campaign literature is not prohibited because it is unlikely to confuse or deceive any Union member and is a common practice during elections involving the IBT as well as other labor organizations); May, 2011 ESD 145 (Mar. 2, 2011) (explaining that Article XI, Section 1(b)(6) permits the use of the Union’s insignia or mark in campaign literature, and thus a candidates use of the Union’s logo for on a postcard for campaign purposes was allowed). Website photographs have been found to not violate Article XI, Section 1(b)(6). See Laszlo, 2011 ESD 87 (Jan. 27, 2011) (holding that because the photograph posted to the website was free of charge, and the candidate did not avoid an expense or save money to use the photograph, there was no violation of the rules). Laszlo set the precedent that made it clear to candidates that website photographs may be used freely. See id.
Here, although the photograph of the 385 Teamsters United slate holding their campaign posters was in front of the union semi-trailer truck prominently displaying the words “Teamsters Local 385” (which all members including all candidates have access to) the Photograph is clearly campaign material unlikely to confuse or deceive members that is it an endorsement of that slate by the local. Moreover, the Photograph was posted on the website for the 385 Teamsters United slate with a caption, “Vote/385 Teamsters United.” That caption does not imply that the local endorses the 385 Teamsters slate.
For all of the reasons set forth herein, we do not find that the Photograph is an improper endorsement or use of union resources in violation of the Rules and 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
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
2026 ESD 68
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
gary@local385.org
John Gildroy
Will Bloom
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Felicia Hardesty
Emily Balzano
emily.balzano@nelsonmullins.com
Kelly Hogan
[1] Prior to speaking with Mason, the investigator spoke with Gildroy who confirmed that he was in the Photograph but stated that he was not the slate’s spokesperson.
[2] Ostrach analyzes Article VII, Section 11(c) which is different than the Rules discussed herein but is substantially similar. Article VII, Section 11(c) generally prohibits the use of union resources for campaign purposes. Section 11(c) states one exception, viz., when, under provisions adopted by an IBT affiliate and made known in advance in writing to all candidates, union resources are made available equally to all candidates with the proviso that the candidates will reimburse the union at fair market value for the assistance provided. Ostrach even makes mention that this provision is similar to Article XI, Section 1(b)(6), mentioned here.
[3] This was a consolidated decision also addressing P-685-LU420-CLA. No appeal of P-685-LU420-CLA was taken.