Bentley, 2026 ESD 105

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: BENTLEY, MICHAEL         )                       Protest Decision 2026 ESD 105

Protestor.                                )                        Issued: June 3, 2026
)

______________________________)                       OES Case No. P-085-022026 and

P-095-022726

INTRODUCTION

Michael Bentley filed two protests against Rick Armstrong and the Armstrong/Gibbs Team 391 Slate for campaigning on union time and with union resources in violation of the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”). The second protest he filed was also against Brian Lewis. We consolidated these protests for decision.

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

BACKGROUND & INVESTIGATION

a.      Facebook Invite Allegedly Sent on Union Time (P-085)

Protestor alleges that Armstrong sent a Facebook request to another member, Evelyn Vanhook, inviting her to follow the Armstrong/Gibbs Teams 391 Slate on Facebook on union time. According to the time stamp on Facebook, the invitation was sent at approximately 3:09 pm on February 19, 2026. A screenshot submitted with the protest confirms that an invitation from Rick Armstrong sent an invitation to follow the Armstrong-Gibbs Team 391 on that date with the time stamp as alleged.

Armstrong states that he sent the invite to Vanhook randomly, as he did other members. He could not recall the exact time he sent the invite but stated his understanding that the Rules prohibit campaigning on union time and he does not believe that he violated that Rule by sending the invite on union time. No other member complained of receiving an invite from Armstrong during union time.

b.      Alleged Request for Seniority List to Assist with Campaigning (P-085)

Bentley alleges that Armstrong asked Jody Whitlock to obtain a seniority list from ABF and sent Facebook requests to the individuals on that list or at ABF that Armstrong does not

know. Bentley states that Brandon Bullard,¹ a member of Local 391, told him about Whitlock getting the list for Armstrong.

Armstrong denies asking Whitlock to procure a seniority list of members that work at ABF, states that he was unaware such a list existed, and denies ever using one. The investigator has interviewed Armstrong on multiple occasions concerning various protests and other matters throughout this election cycle, and has found his statements to be consistent with those prior discussions. In particular, Armstrong has demonstrated limited familiarity with the specific operations and procedures at the ABF facility, a point that has arisen in contexts unrelated to this protest, and which is consistent with his statements in this instance.

Whitlock stated that Armstrong never requested a seniority list from him and that he never gave Armstrong such a list.

c. Alleged Improper Campaigning by Lewis (P-095)

Protestor alleges that Brian Lewis is a paid staff member for Local 391 with a contract as an independent contractor to serve as a political/media coordinator, which was recently renewed by the executive board. Bentley states that he is a political lobbyist and responsible for running Local 391’s Facebook page. Bentley alleges that Lewis is also running and posting on the Armstrong/Gibbs Team 391 Facebook page. He included three posts by the Armstrong-Gibbs Team 391 Facebook page campaigning for Armstrong and his slate in his protest.

Lewis’ company, New Frame LLC, is a North Carolina lobbying and public affairs firm. Lewis and Armstrong confirmed that Lewis is a lobbyist for Local 391 and was hired by Armstrong to work for the Armstrong/Gibbs Teams 391 Slate. This is not the first time Armstrong has hired Lewis to assist with his campaign. Lewis stated that he has worked for the local and other campaigns since 2014. Lewis states that he was explicitly instructed not to perform any campaign-related work on while on union time or using union resources, and that he has complied with that directive.

Armstrong confirmed that he hired Lewis to set up and administer the Facebook page for the Armstrong/Gibbs Team 391 Slate. Armstrong stated that he pays Lewis for that work with his personal funds, not union funds. Lewis, who is not an IBT member, confirmed that he is paid directly from Armstrong’s personal account. Lewis confirmed that he created the Armstrong-Gibbs Team 391 Facebook page and posted the subject posts at issue in this protest. He explained that anyone can view and post on the page.

Local 391 is entitled to 10 delegates and 10 alternate delegates to the IBT International Convention. Local 391’s delegate election occurred on April 21, 2026. A total of 1,375 ballots were cast; 1,337 valid ballots were counted, 3 ballots were void, and 35 were unresolved challenged ballots. The winning delegate with the lowest number of votes received 818 votes. The losing delegate with the most votes received 396 votes making the margin in the delegate election 422 votes. The winning alternate delegate with the fewest votes received 802 votes. The losing alternate delegate with the most votes received 413 votes making the margin in the alternate delegate election 389 votes. Factoring in the 35 unresolved challenged ballots and assuming that the losing delegate candidate who received the most votes received all the votes on the challenged ballots, the delegate election margin would be 387. Making that same assumption in the alternate delegate election, the margin would be 354 votes.

APPLICABLE RULES & ANALYSIS

Union members have the right to participate in campaign activities, including supporting candidates. Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(a). Union officers and employees may participate in campaign activities, but they cannot use union funds or paid union work time to do so (except incidental campaigning or during breaks, lunch, or paid time off). Additionally, union resources including, funds, equipment, staff, etc., cannot be used for campaigning unless all candidates are given equal access and the Union is reimbursed at fair market value. See Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(b) and (c); see also Rules, Art. XI, Section 1(b)(6). Unions are not 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...” Rules, Article XI, Sections 1(b)(3).Candidates are prohibited from accepting such improper contributions. See id.

a.      Facebook Invite Allegedly Sent on Union Time

As set forth above, the smallest possible margin of victory in the delegates election between the lowest winning and the highest losing tally was 387 votes. In the alternate delegates election, it was 354 votes. In his first protest, protestor alleges that Armstrong sent one Facebook invitation on union time. Even if the alleged violation were proven, it did not affect the outcome of Local 391’s delegate election. See Johnson, 2011 ESD 225 (Apr. 21, 2011).

Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of P-085.

b.      Alleged Request for Seniority List to Assist with Campaigning

We find insufficient evidence to support Bentley’s allegations that Armstrong requested a seniority list. Armstrong, whom we find credible, and Whitlock both deny these allegations. The protestor’s claims are based on statements by another member who did not respond to the investigator’s attempts to obtain further information. We have no evidence to show that Armstrong or the Armstrong/Gibbs Team 391 Slate asked for or used any such list for campaign purposes, nor evidence to show that any alleged use could have affected the outcome of the election, particularly in light of the substantial margins in both the delegate and alternate delegate elections.

Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of P-085.

c. Alleged Improper Campaigning by Lewis

Bentley does not cite any specific provisions of the Rules he alleges Lewis or the

Armstrong-Gibbs Team 391 Slate violated by running its Facebook campaign page. Based on his allegations, we interpret his protest to allege that Armstrong used union funds or resources to campaign and/or accepted improper campaign contributions. We find no violation of the Rules here.

Bentley includes three screenshots of Facebook posts, all of which are clearly campaigning for the Armstrong/Gibbs Team 391. The fact that Lewis assisted with Armstrong’s campaign is undisputed. Running a Facebook page in support of a slate or candidate is, of course, permitted under the Rules provided union funds or resources were not used. Here, there is no evidence that Armstrong used union funds or resources to campaign through the Armstrong/Gibbs Team 391 Facebook page.

While Lewis works for both Local 391 and Armstrong, Lewis, who we find credibility, denied posting or running the campaign page during any time he was working for the union. See e.g., Caraballo, P-653-LU272-NYC (April 3, 1996) (holding that a business agent who worked irregular hours and contended that a mid-morning delivery of campaign literature was during a self-declared break, was campaigning on personal time as permitted by the Rules). Additionally, the evidence shows that Armstrong paid Lewis for his work related to the Armstrong/Gibbs Team 391 campaign, not the union. Bentley does not provide sufficient evidence to show that these posts were made in violation of the Rules.

Accordingly, we DENY P-095.

For the reasons set forth herein, we DENY these protests in their entirety.

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.