Stedronsky, 2026 ESD 91
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: ROSEMARY STEDRONSKY ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 91
) Issued: May 27, 2026
Protestor. )
) P-101-030326, and P-102-030326
INTRODUCTION
Rosemary Stedronsky filed protests on behalf of the Power for All Slate against General President Sean O’Brien, the O’Brien Zuckerman Teamsters United 2026 (“OZ Slate”), Local 63 and its Executive Board, and the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate. She alleges that O’Brien improperly campaigned at a Local 63 membership meeting in support of the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate, disparaged and retaliated against her and her slate, and that a campaign mailer containing a QR code was sent with the intent to mislead voters and suppress turnout. She further claims that respondents failed to ensure compliance with the Rules for the 2025–2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).
Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated these protests including, but not limited to, interviewing the protestor Stedronsky, Fausto De La Torre, President of the California Golden Gloves, and executive board members, Randy Cammack, Local 63 Secretary-Treasurer, and Sam Stewart, President of Local 63, and review of all materials submitted by interested parties.
BACKGROUND
Local 63 has long been involved in supporting the South El Monte Teamsters Boxing Club and the High Desert Youth Boxing Club. In the Fall of 2025, Local 63’s Executive Board, including Cammack and Stewart, discussed sponsoring an event for the youth boxing clubs. On December 6, 2025, Local 63, by letter, invited General President, Sean O’Brien, to attend the Local 63 general membership meeting and youth boxing match on February 28, 2026. Local 63 also invited Fausto De La Torre to attend. Cammack and Stewart both confirmed Local 63’s long standing relationship with the California Golden Gloves charity and its pride on supporting those groups.
Local 63’s membership meeting took place at 9:00 am just before the boxing match, scheduled from 11am-1:00pm. Approximately 349 Local 63 members attended the membership meeting, as well as the youth boxers, O’Brien, and De La Torre.
1. Alleged Improper Campaigning at the Membership Meeting
P-100
The protestor alleges that during O’Brien’s speech at the membership meeting, he improperly campaigned for candidates on the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate by commending Cammack for his leadership and highlighting Stewart’s contributions to the UPS Contract negotiations. She acknowledges that he also praised Local 63’s business agents, generally, for setting the standard for representation nationwide, and mentioned Business Agent Ralph Dominguez (who was not a candidate on the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate) specifically. The protestor alleges that these statements constitute improper campaign speech in support of that slate.
Counsel for Local 63 submitted a response to the protest on behalf of the local disputing the allegations that O’Brien campaigned at the general membership meeting in violation of the Rules. According to the local, O’Brien addressed the attendees for a total of approximately fifteen minutes. During his speech, O’Brien recognized (1) Cammack for his overall accomplishments as the principal officer of the local; (2) Stewart for his work in UPS negotiations; and (3) UPS Business Agent Ralph Dominguez for his hard work in organizing the Local 63’s involvement and success in UPS negotiations. He also encouraged union members to keep criticisms “at the dinner table” so as to not give bulletin board material to union busters who use this information against the best interest of the membership. O’Brien has expressed similar statements in a variety of different forums as the IBT has prioritized combatting union buster strategies. Per Local 63’s counsel, O’Brien did not, at any point, make any statements about the election. He did not reference any slate or candidacy, let alone express any opinion about who to support or not support in the delegate election.
De La Torre also addressed the attendees and spoke about boxing trainer Ben Lira. De La Torre said that O’Brien spoke about the brotherhood and history of the IBT, and the importance of unity to stay a strong union. He said that the speech lasted no more than fifteen minutes and that O’Brien never mentioned an election. According to De La Torre, who is not a member of Local 63 and was not a candidate on either slate in the delegate election, the event was focused on boxing.
P-102
The protestor filed a separate protest alleging that while giving his speech at the February 28, 2026 Local 63 membership meeting, O’Brien also disparaged, attacked, defamed and retaliated against her, Christine Belliveau, the Tug & Mule Show, and the Power for All Slate. Specifically, she alleges that while discussing how the union should address matters internally to protect itself from union busters, O’Brien spoke negatively about “those members who go online as keyboard warriors, on social media, podcasts, and other stuff. They are the true problem in our union,” “they are worse than the corporations,” and “these members are destroying our union.” She further alleges that “On the same day and during the same speech, I previously filed a protest alleging that President O’Brien illegally campaigned for the Cammack/Stewart Oz Teamsters United 2026 Slate, while attempting to discredit the Power for All Slate.”
The protestor does not allege that O’Brien specifically mentioned her, Belliveau, her slate, or show by name but she believes that the criticism was directed at her. She asserts that because she and Belliveau are the only Local 63 members with a widely recognized political Facebook page and YouTube channel that O’Brien’s comments were, therefore, directed at them. The protestor further states that during his speech, she stood in the back of the room visible to O’Brien and that his demeanor caused her to conclude she was being singled out. Specifically, she alleges that he made direct eye contact each time he made these remarks. OZ Slate Campaign Mailer
P-101
The protestor further alleges that on or about February 28, 2026, Local 63 members received a postcard sent by the OZ Slate endorsing the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate. The postcard encouraged voters to vote for the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate “in the upcoming election. Ballots arrive soon!” It included a QR code which linked to a Facebook page that did not relate to the Local 63 delegate election or the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate. Instead, the page concerns the Local 63 officer election that occurred last fall. Specifically, it showed a post that was dated October 20, 2025, stating “We did it! The Cammack/Stewart Slate is honored to have earned your trust and support for the next term. Thank you to every member who took the time to vote…” It included a large image of the Cammack/Stewart slate, under a bold caption “WE WON!”
The protestor alleges that this was a deliberate attempt to confuse or mislead voters by suggesting that the Local 63 delegate election was over and that the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate had prevailed. She claims that this resulted in voter suppression and election fraud compromising the integrity of the election.
Local 63 stated that the OZ Slate requested access to its mailing list for distribution of campaign literature as permitted by the Rules and that the local complied. The OZ Slate stated that the QR code was intended to link the recipient to a Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate campaign Facebook page but acknowledges that instead, the QR code linked to an outdated Facebook page for the Cammack-Stewart Slate in Local 63’s officer election held on October 20, 2025.
James Donovan, Treasurer for the OZ Slate, stated that the OZ Slate informed Cammack to update the QR code to link to the campaign page for Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate before the postcard was mailed. Cammack acknowledges that the Facebook page was not updated, but said he is not very familiar with technology due to his age.
Donovan states that the OZ Slate was unaware that the Facebook page had not been updated and denies any intent for the QR code to direct recipients to an outdated Facebook post. He characterizes the issue as an inadvertent miscommunication rather than any deliberate or improper conduct. According to the OZ Slate, the postcards were supposed to arrive on or around the same day as the ballots. The Local 63 ballots were mailed on February 26, 2024, about two days before protestor alleges members received the subject mailer. Local 63 states that upon the filing of this protest, it promptly took down the Facebook page. The investigator confirmed that the Facebook page was taken down.
Local 63 is entitled to 20 delegates and 4 alternate delegates to the June 2026 IBT International Convention. The ballot count was held on March 26, 2026. A total of 1,302 ballots were cast; 1,235 valid ballots were counted, no ballots were voided, and there were 67 unresolved challenged ballots. The winning delegate candidate with the least number of votes received 872 votes.[1] The losing delegate candidate with the most votes received 258 votes, making the margin for the delegate election 614 votes. Assuming that all 67 unresolved challenge votes went to the Power for All Slate candidate who received the most votes, the margin was 547.
P-100 & P-102[2]
Article VII, Section 5(a)(3) states:
The Local Union need not allot time for campaigning during any of its meetings. However, if campaigning during such meetings is permitted, the Local Union shall notify all candidates for the positions for which such campaigning will be permitted of the opportunity to speak at least five (5) days prior to the meeting and shall divide the time equally between those candidates (or candidates' credentialed representatives) who request an opportunity to speak. The order of appearance shall be determined by lot.
See Rules. Additionally, Article VII, Section 5(a)(b) states:
A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor of or against any candidate in conjunction with its meetings or otherwise. This requirement shall apply not only to formal presentations by or on behalf of candidates but also to informal campaign activities, such as, for example, comments on candidates during meetings, literature distribution at meetings, literature distribution tables, etc.
See id.
The question here, is whether O’Brien’s speech constituted “campaigning” defined as, “advocacy for or against a candidate.” See Hoffa, P-996-LU436-CLE; Giacumbo, et al., P-001-IBT-PNJ, et seq., (September 29, 1995), aff’d in relevant part, 95 - Elec. App. - 32 (KC) (November 1, 1995); See also Caffrey, P-047-JC16-NYC (October 19, 1995). We find that it did not.
In Ferguson, 2001 EAD 286, the protestors alleged improper campaign activity by Local 89 President Fred Zuckerman, similar to the protestor’s allegations here. The protest stemmed from comments Zuckerman made at a Local 89 general freight meeting, whereby he addressed two circulating claims; that members’ pension benefits would be offset by Social Security income, and that the local union was experiencing severe financial difficulties. The protestors argued that Zuckerman’s remarks were intended to rebut campaign materials distributed by their slate, which criticized the local’s financial performance during Zuckerman’s tenure as president. Although Zuckerman responded to the rumors during the meeting, he did not refer to the delegate election, did not identify any candidates or slates, and did not attribute the rumors to any particular individuals.
The protest was denied. In reaching that conclusion, the Election Supervisor reaffirmed the principle that speech which is otherwise permissible does not amount to campaigning unless it crosses certain lines. Specifically, “an otherwise acceptable communication may be considered campaigning if it goes on to make a connection with the election or the election process, if it involves excessive direct or indirect personal attacks on candidates, or alternatively, involves lavish praise of candidates. Otherwise legitimate coverage of the activities of a union official running for office may constitute campaigning if it is excessive.” Id., citing Martin, P10 (Aug. 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 18 (Oct. 2, 1995), and Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Additionally, the Election Supervisor held that a local president’s responsibilities are to respond to members “concerns and inform them about matters of general interest.” See Ferguson, 2001 EAD 286 (Mar. 30, 2001).
Applying the same standard here, we find that O’Brien’s statements fall within the scope of legitimate union communication not impermissible campaigning. O’Brien, as General President, addressed highlights of achievements of the President and Secretary-Treasurer of Local 63 in their role as such. Additionally, O’Brien did not only address the President and Secretary-Treasurer, he not only commended all of Local 63’s business agents and the work they are doing but, specifically identified and recognized Business Agent Dominguez—who was not on the Cammack/Stewart Slate—for his accomplishments. O’Brien’s speech was unpartisan in its tone, as its purpose seemed to be one of informing the Local 63 members of recent achievements of its executive board—union business appropriately discussed at a general membership meeting—and also because it did not address or allude to the elections. O’Brien’s statements factually report on Cammack, Stewart, and Dominguez’s involvement in the UPS negotiations, and overall hard work in their respective positions. Additionally, O’Brien’s comments regarding union busters was made for the betterment of the entire Local 63 membership, not one slate in particular. These limited statements of acknowledgement do not rise to the level of “lavish praise” required to constitute campaign speech. See e.g., Leedham, 2001 EAD 394 (June 23, 2001) (explaining that “lavish praise” is necessary for a finding of campaign speech).
In Joliff 2001 EAD 209 (Mar. 2, 2001), Dan Jolliff, a member of Local Union 19, filed a protest alleging that trustee Jerry Vincent disparaged delegate candidates Rodney Rhoades and Ken Faulk during a membership meeting. At the meeting, Vincent blamed Rhoades and Faulk for the membership’s rejection of proposed bylaw amendments, which Vincent asserted were necessary to terminate the local’s trusteeship. The Election Supervisor concluded that Vincent’s remarks, while critical of Rhoades and Faulk, concerned an issue of legitimate issue “unrelated to the delegate election.” Accordingly, the remarks did not constitute “campaigning” under Article VII, Section 5(a)(4).
Here, O’Brien did not specifically reference Stedronsky, Belliveau, her slate, or show during his remarks at the February 28, 2026 membership meeting or otherwise identify them. His comments regarding “keyboard warriors” or union busting were general comments consistent with a theme O’Brien has advocated for on other occasions unrelated to Local 63 members. He did not reference or discuss the election. There was no “…deliberate speech reproach of the opposing slate in the Local 63 delegate election, the Power for all slate” as alleged in the protest.
Additionally, the Election Supervisory has made it clear that “legitimate coverage of the activities of a union official running for office may constitute campaigning if it is excessive.” See McNeely, 2001 EAD 485 (Oct. 2, 2001) (explaining that “since the convention was chaired and keynoted by the General President, and reported to by the General Secretary-Treasurer, it is not improper that their actions at the convention should be the subject of coverage”). Here, Cammack and Stewart were the President and Secretary-Treasurer of Local 63, who were hosting the boxing event. It is not unusual that O’Brien discussed their general achievements at the event they organized.
Moreover, even if O’Brien’s speech constituted campaigning—a finding we expressly do not make—this protest would be denied. As discussed above, there were 349 members present at the membership meeting and the margin in the delegate election was 547 votes. Accordingly, we find that even if the speech constituted a violation (it did not), it could not have affected the outcome of the election.
For all of these reasons, we DENY these protests.
P-101[3]
Article VII, Section 7 governs campaign literature and mailings and ensures equal access to distribution. Specifically, Article VII, Section 7(a)(1) states:
Each candidate shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of any other candidate, to have his/her literature distributed by the Union, at the candidate's expense. This means: (a) each candidate is entitled to a reasonable number of mailings, whether or not any other candidate makes such request(s); (b) when the Union authorizes distribution of campaign literature on behalf of any candidate, similar distribution under the same conditions and costs shall be made for any other candidate, if requested; and (c) the Union need not distribute any candidate's campaign literature if that candidate is not able and willing to pay for the reasonable costs of such distribution.
Additionally, Article VII, Section 7(b) states:
Any request for distribution of literature shall be made by the candidate to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Union in writing. The request shall specify the portion of the membership that is to receive the mailing and an instruction as to the class or type of mail or postage desired. The request shall be accompanied by at least one (1) copy of the literature (if the candidate wishes it to be duplicated by the Union) or by a number of copies sufficient for distribution (if the candidate duplicates the literature him/herself), or by a number of sealed envelopes, containing the literature, sufficient for distribution (if the candidate duplicates the literature and stuffs the envelopes him/herself).
The protestor does not allege, nor does the record show, any violation of these provisions.
Rather, the protestor alleges that the QR code linking to an outdated Facebook post falsely suggested that the Local 63 delegate election had already concluded to intentionally confuse members and discourage them from voting. We find no evidence that the OZ Slate, the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate, or Local 63’s Executive Board misled, intended to mislead, or sought to suppress member participation in the delegate election. Nor do we find evidence that any member was misled or voter suppression occurred as a result of the mailer.
The record shows that the OZ Slate notified Cammack that the postcards would be mailed and specifically instructed him to update the associated Facebook page. Although Cammack was aware of this instruction, he failed to update the page. This omission, however, does not constitute a violation of the Rules.
Moreover, the Facebook page itself is not misleading. Its content clearly pertains to an election in October 2025, not the March 26, 2026 delegate election. For example, it prominently displays a victory announcement (“WE WON!”) dated October 20, 2025, the date of Local 63’s officer election—months prior to the delegate election—and references the Cammack Stewart Slate not the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate, making the context apparent.
Importantly, even assuming arguendo that the content could have caused confusion, the protestor has presented no evidence that any member was actually misled or refrained from voting as a result, let alone that more than 547 members were.[4] See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 1 (placing the burden on the protestor to establish that a violation occurred). Further, even if the post was arguably misleading, such a claim would not, standing alone, establish a Rules violation. In Yolland, P-660-LU439-CSF (Apr. 3, 1996), the Election Supervisor denied a protest alleging misleading campaigning, finding that even potentially misleading campaign content did not violate the Rules. As explained in Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (Feb. 21, 1996) (quoting Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (Feb. 21, 1991)), the Rules are designed to “secure for all candidates the freedom to fully exercise political rights,” and they “neither prohibit nor regulate the content of campaign literature.”
This principle is codified in Article VII, Section 12 of the Rules, which broadly protects campaign activity and expression. Article VII, Section 12(a) guarantees members the right to participate in campaign activities, including supporting or opposing candidates and distributing campaign literature, while Section 12(d) prohibits restrictions on candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support and engage in campaign activities, so long as such opportunities are provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. Consistent with this framework, Marinez and Kolis, 2011 ESD 178 (Mar. 23, 2011), explains that the Rules incorporate the free speech protections of the LMRDA, including 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2), which safeguards members’ rights to free expression within the union.
Against this backdrop, the evidence here falls well short of establishing a violation. The mailer itself affirmatively encouraged voter participation (e.g., “Vote for Randy Cammack, Sam Stewart, and the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate in the upcoming election. Ballots arrive soon,”) directly undermining any claim of voter suppression. Additionally, the Facebook page was promptly removed following the filing of this protest, further undermining the protestor’s speculation that any alleged confusion was intentional.
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 on 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 91
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Randy Cammack
Richard Hooker
John Palmer
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James Donovan
David Suetholz
Will Bloom,
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
thomas.kokalas@bracewell.com
Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.)
Deborah Schaaf
Paul Dever
Emily Balzano
Emily.balzano@nelsonmullins.com
Kelly Hogan
[1] The Power for All Slate was a partial slate and there were no alternate delegate candidates nominated, therefore, the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate’s alternate candidates were deemed elected following the nomination meeting.
[2] P-100 and P-102 contain the same analysis, because the protests are for the same alleged conduct. To the extent protestor makes a claim for retaliation, it is denied. Retaliation claims are governed by Article VII, Section 12(g) of the Rules, which prohibits retaliation or the threat of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, and Article XIII, Section 1, which guarantees that members may file protests free from retaliation. The protestor makes a conclusory statement that she was retaliated against in P‑102. This statement is unsupported by any facts and fails as a matter of law. To establish retaliation under the Rules, a protestor must show (1) activity protected under the Rules; (2) the charged party having actual or constructive knowledge of the protected activity; and (3) a showing that the protected activity was a motiving factor in the decision or conduct at issue. See McNally, 2016 ESD 237 (June 7, 2016). The protestor has not satisfied these elements. Notably, the alleged “protected activity” appears to be the filing of a protest against General President O’Brien; however, the record shows that P‑102 was filed contemporaneously with, and in fact appears to have been received before, P‑100, both of which were submitted after the February 28, 2026 speech at issue. Lastly, the has not established any adverse action taken against her. Accordingly, that speech could not have been motivated by a protest that had not yet been filed. Nor does the protestor identify any other qualifying protected activity temporally linked to the alleged conduct. Aside from an unrelated protest she previously against UNiLECT. Absent evidence of protected activity, adverse action, or any causal nexus between the two, the retaliation claim is conclusory and must be rejected.
[3] At the conclusion of the protest, following her request for relief, the protestor quotes language from 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) and (c). However, she does not connect these statutory provisions to any specific factual allegations, nor does she identify what conduct—or by whom—purportedly violated them. Accordingly, to the extent the protest asserts claims under § 501, those claims are denied.
Moreover, even assuming the protestor intends to allege that the OZ Slate, General President O’Brien, and/or the Local 63 Executive Board violated 29 U.S.C. § 501 by permitting the postcard to be mailed, she has presented no evidence sufficient to establish such a violation. Section 501(a) imposes fiduciary duties on union officers to act solely in the interests of the union and its members, while § 501(c) addresses fraud, embezzlement, and other financial misconduct involving union assets. See 29 U.S.C. § 501(a), (c). The conduct at issue here does not implicate the misuse of union assets, nor does it rise to the level of a breach of fiduciary duty. The protestor has alleged no facts suggesting fraud, theft, or other financial misconduct by Local 63 or its officers. Accordingly, this allegation is without merit.
[4] In fact, the protestor’s allegations arise solely on assumptions and speculation. For example, she states “Many members will see this post not realizing it [sic] not fore the Delegate election and think the election is over.”