Buchei, 2026 ESD 80
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: RILEY ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 80
BUCHEI )
) Issued: May 18, 2026
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P- 132- 032526
)
)
INTRODUCTION
Riley Buchei filed a protest against Spencer Hogue, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 222 and candidate for delegate on an opposing slate in the Local 222 delegate election (the “Delegate Election”) and Local 222 alleging that Hogue and Local 222 violated Article IX, Section 1(f) of the Rules.
Jim Devine of the Office of the Election Supervisor investigated this protest.
APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS
Under Article IX, Section 1(a) of the Rules:
Each candidate nominated for such position and each slate of candidates nominated for such position(s) shall have the right, at his/her/its expense, to have at least one (1) observer present at each and every phase of the election process. Such observer shall be a candidate or a member of good standing of the Local Union…
Article IX, Section 1(f) states:
Time spent observing shall be considered as time spent on Union business. Therefore, upon written request of any observer, the appropriate Union officer, business agent, steward, etc., shall so certify to such observer's employer or to any other person or entity to whom the observer reasonably requests such certification be given. No observer shall use this privilege for the purpose of campaigning. To the extent that the privilege of being given time away from work (i.e., unpaid leave) for Union business is limited, the observers for each candidate, as a group, must be treated equally.
On March 22, 2026, Buchei submitted written notice to Devine designating himself and Deven Bugger as observers for ballot retrieval and the count for the Independent Slate in Local 222’s Delegate Election scheduled for March 26, 2026. That same day, Buchei requested written certification that time spent observing the election process is considered union business to provide to his and Bugger’s employer and noting that he was “only seeking proper documentation to ensure compliance with employer requirements.”
On March 23, 2026, referring to Article 16 of the UPS National Master Agreement, Hogue responded to Buchei stating that time spent observing the election process is not official union business. He informed Buchei that he could ask the employer for the time off or take available entitlements.
Two days later, on March 25, 2026, Buchei filed this protest. Jim Devine of the OES was assigned to investigate. He immediately contacted Hogue, referred him to Article XI, Section 1(f) of the Rules, and instructed him to comply. Hogue did so. Hogue promptly contacted the employer directly and requested that Buchei and Bugger be released from work on March 26, 2026 to observe the ballot retrieval and count to ensure the protestor’s right to observe the following day was not hindered. On March 26, 2026, Buchei observed the ballot retrieval and count.
Buchei clarified that his protest was not limited to obtaining time off to observe this event but compliance with Article IX, Section 1(f) of the Rules. He alleges that Hogue’s response violated the Rules by denying that observer time must be considered union business and declining to certify that status upon Buchei’s request. This protest is considered in the post-election context and “[e]xcept for protests alleging threats, coercion, intimidation, violence or retaliation, post-election protests shall be considered and remedied only if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election.” Johnson, 2011 ESD 225 (Apr. 21, 2011). Here, Buchei’s rights were not hindered as he was able to observe as requested and to the extent Hogue’s initial response to Buchei constituted a violation of the Rules, it did not affect the outcome of the election. See Bianchi, P-526-LU390-SEC (Apr. 2, 1996) (finding a violation of the Rules but denying the protest because the violation did not affect the outcome of the election).
Accordingly, 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 80
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Riley Buchei
Spencer Hogue
Britt Miller
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James Donovan, Jr.,
John Palmer
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Jim Devine
Kelly Hogan