Home / Recent Changes / Bentley, 2026 ESD 76

Bentley, 2026 ESD 76

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: MICHAEL BENTLEY ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 76

)

) Issued: May 6, 2026

Protestor. )

) OES Case No. P-138-032926

)

INTRODUCTION

Michael Bentley filed a protest against Kevin Coats, a candidate on the Armstrong/Gibbs Local 391 slate alleging that he improperly distributed campaign flyers while members were working in violation of the Rules for the 2025-2026 International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).

Felicia Hardesty of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.

BACKGROUND

There are two types of preloads of delivery trucks at UPS facilities. One involves a cage system, where drivers remove packages from cases and subsequently walk them to their trucks, which are parked in a parking lot nearby. The other consists of trucks being backed perpendicular to a conveyor belt for workers to grab packages for loading into the truck as the packages pass by. This type of preloading requires continuous lifting and loading of packages onto the trucks.

Coats works at the Cary Towne Center UPS facility in Raleigh, NC. On March 24, 2026, before clocking in for his shift, Coats passed out campaign flyers at that UPS facility during the preloading of the delivery trucks. Coats testified that members at the time were conducting the walking preloading. In his interview, Coats stated that he was handing out the flyers while the preloading workers were walking between the warehouse and the trucks and insisted that he did not impede the workers in any way or slow the process of the preloading. A business agent at the UPS facility stated that during this kind of preloading, the driver does not stop or walk between retrieving the packing and loading it into the truck, it is one fluid motion. This preloading process occurs from 6-8am.

The protestor alleges that Coats engaged in improper campaigning by handing campaign flyers to the workers who were preloading the vehicles. Coats’s shift begins at 8am. Coats states that he handed out ten flyers and was only in the preload area for about thirty minutes before his shift.

ANALYSIS

Article VII, Section 12(e) of the Rules states,

Subject to the limitations in this Subsection, (i) a candidate for delegate or alternate delegate and any member of the candidate's Local Union may distribute literature and/or otherwise solicit support in connection with such candidacy in any parking lot used by that Local Union's members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment; (ii) each member of a candidate's Local Union has the reciprocal right to receive such literature and/or solicitation of support from such candidate or candidate's advocate; (iii) a candidate for International office and any Union member within the regional area(s) in which said candidate is seeking office may distribute literature and/or otherwise solicit support in connection with such candidacy in any parking lot used by Union members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment in said regional area(s); (iv) each member of the International Union who is employed within the regional area(s) in which said candidate is seeking office has the reciprocal right to receive such literature and/or solicitation of support from such candidate for International office or candidate's advocate.

The foregoing rights are available only in connection with campaigning during the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election conducted pursuant to the Final Order and only during hours when the parking lot is normally open to employees. The rights guaranteed in this Subsection are not available to an employee on working time, may not be exercised among employees who are on working time and do not extend to campaigning which would materially interfere with the normal business activities of the employer. An employer may require reasonable identification to assure that a person seeking access to an employee parking lot pursuant to this rule is a candidate or other member entitled to such access. Nothing in this Subsection shall entitle any candidate or other Union member to access to any other part of premises owned, leased, operated, or used by an employer or to access to a parking lot for purposes or under circumstances other than as set forth herein

In Aldridge, P-171-LU667-SCE, the Electron Supervisor discusses that provision in the Rules which requires a candidate to have access to the location in which he/she is campaigning. In Aldridge, because the candidate was allowed access to the parking lot, where employees were allowed to be, the protest was resolved. The Election Supervisor explained that because the candidate was allowed access to the location, there was no violation of the Rules.

The main issue here, is whether Coats’s handing out campaign materials inside the UPS facility “materially interfered” with the normal business of the other members. In Carlucci, P-916-LU705-CHI (Sept. 23, 1996), the Election Supervisor held that the members standing in a “small area immediately inside the employer’s gate” and distributing campaign literature to employees before they began their shift, at a time when their vehicles were already stopped, did not materially interfere with normal business activities.

In Richard De Vries, 2001 EAD 449 (Sept. 21, 2001), the protestor claimed that the candidate materially interfered with normal business activities by stopping drivers on their way out of the facility. The Election Supervisor held that under the Rules the campaigner was well within his rights to campaign in the parking lot because he was not working, but that Article VII, Section 12(e) does not protect campaigning “among employees while they are at work.” The Election Supervisor also explained that “the drivers were working and the campaigners were not privileged to campaign among them.”

Here, Coats was campaigning among the preload workers, handing them flyers, which disrupted their preload activity. Due to the type of preloading, as described by Campbell, we find it credible that Coats’s distribution of flyers materially interfered with the employees’ preloading activity. Because we find Coat’s campaigning activity materially interfered with the other members’ preloading work, Coats’s conduct violated the Rules. However, we evaluate this conduct in a post-election context and will remedy a Rules violation in a post-election context only if the conduct may have affected the outcome of the election.

Under Article XIII, Section 3(b), “[p]ost-election protests shall only be considered and remedied if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election.” Given the wide margin that decided this election and the comparatively small segment (ten members) of local union membership exposed to the impermissible campaign conduct, the conduct did not affect the outcome of the election. Specifically, the Armstrong/Gibbs slate’s candidate with the lowest votes was Jody Whitlock with 818 total votes, compared to the highest vote of the opposing slate, Kim Degraffenreid with 396 votes. Accordingly, the margin in the Local 391 election was 422 votes, which is substantially higher than the 10 individuals who Coats handed out flyers to.

As described above, in the Local 391 election, the margin for the winning slate was substantial. As such, a violation affecting about ten members did not affect the outcome of the Local 391 election.

For all of these reasons, we DENY this protest. See Bianchi, P-526-LU390-SEC (Apr. 2, 1996) (finding that there was a violation of the Rules but denying the protest because the violation did not affect the outcome of the election).

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 76

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

Kevin Wayne Coats

kwcoats@gmail.com

Michael Bentley

Bentley23psalm@gmail.com

Rick Armstrong

rickarmstrong@gmail.com

Richard Hooker