Shaw, 2026 ESD 107
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: DEMETRIA SHAW ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 107
) Issued: June 4, 2026
Protestor. )
)
INTRODUCTION
Demetria Shaw, a candidate on the Empower Slate, filed a protest against Matt Higdon, principal officer of Local 728 and a candidate on the New Vision Slate in Local 728’s delegate election, alleging that Higdon ratified two stewards and three UPS employees photos with UPS equipment in support of the New Vision Slate constituting improper employer contributions in violation of the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”). She further alleges that she was retaliated against or treated discriminately when her employment was terminated and asserts a “double standard” and collusion between union representative designed to advantage the New Vision Slate. Her protest is denied for the reasons set forth below.
Felicia Hardesty of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest. In addition to conducting interviews of protestor Demetria Shaw, Matt Higdon, Business Agent Ryan Gentry, and Labor Manager Kecia Brunson, the investigation also included review of the various materials submitted by the interested parties including, but not limited to, Facebook posts and comments, supplemental submissions, and correspondence.
BACKGROUND
Protestor alleges that two stewards, Dewayne Happel, D. Lipscomb, and three UPS employees took photographs campaigning for the New Vision Slate with UPS shifter units, which Higdon endorsed or supported on the New Vision Slate’s campaign Facebook page, constituting an improper employer contribution. In support of her protest, she provided multiple screenshots of photographs of individuals campaigning for the New Vision Slate with a shifter in the photograph. The individuals in the photographs are holding a New Vision t-shirt and other campaign material. She also provided a screen shot of a comment by Higdon, “Thank you all and a special shout out to Dewayne Happell for being an incredible Teamster Leader!!”
Review of the Local 728 New Vision Slate Facebook page confirms protestor’s allegations the subject post and Higdon’s comment. Specifically, the post states, “Big thank you to our SMART Hub Shifters for your continued support!!! Vote New Vision today!!!” with the photographs protestor submitted with her protest. There are multiple other posts made on the Local 728 New Vision Slate Facebook page the same day and the days that followed. The post received a total of 27 likes and 5 comments. In total, the individual comments on the post received 11 likes and 3 hearts. Accordingly, the evidence shows that the post generated 46 responses with at least three of the comments and six of the likes made by members of the New Vision Slate.[1]
The protestor also alleges that she was retaliated and discriminated against for engaging in protected activity. She states that her employment with UPS was terminated on January 5, 2026 because of her misuse of employer equipment, a PITO (cart) and that this discipline constitutes retaliation or disparate treatment. Protestor alleges that at her March 10, 2026 hearing, Kecia Brunson, Labor Manager, argued that “‘union business is not me in service of the company’ to justify discharge.” Protestor alleges that the individuals identified above who used the shifters in campaign photos were not disciplined despite using company equipment while campaigning. Based on this, the protestor contends that there is a difference in how she was treated compared to the individuals identified above. She claims that this “proves selective enforcement to assist the incumbent slate by purging opposition.” She further alleges that Chad Clark,[2] BaSE Manager, acted on an anonymous complaint with no written statement “to target” the protestor.
Brunson stated that Shaw was terminated for improperly using a PITO and then being dishonest about that use. Specifically, Shaw was seen on video operating a PITO through and outside facility, which is not permitted. When questioned, Shaw claimed that she was using the PITO to conduct union business (investigating a grievance); however, UPS found no evidence supporting that assertion. Brunson stated that UPS concluded Shaw’s explanation was false and that her dishonesty, coupled with her improper use of the PITO, formed the basis for her termination.
Brunson denied making the statement that “union business is not me in service of the company” as a justification for the discharge. To the contrary, Brunson explained that UPS permits stewards to conduct union business on company time at the SmartHub facility, provided they obtain prior approval from management. According to Brunson, Shaw did not request such permission on the day of the incident.
UPS provided a copy of the protestor’s termination letter dated January 5, 2026. The letter stated that protestor’s employment was terminated “for acts of dishonesty, which was in violation of Article 52. As a result of your actions, you are being discharged.”
Business Agent Ryan Gentry also stated that the incident resulting in UPS’s termination of protestor’s employment occurred in September 2025 and that there was video of it. Shortly after this incident, protestor went on short-term disability leave. Upon protestor returning to work, on January 5, 2025, UPS promptly terminated her.
Higdon stated that he is not involved in protestor’s employment. More specifically he stated that he is not involved in the decision to terminate Shaw’s employment, he has no authority to terminate Shaw’s employment, and he was not involved in her termination process. He denied speaking with Kecia Brunson about the protestor’s employment. Higdon stated that he first became aware of that protestor was planning or interested in running in Local 728’s delegate election shortly before the nomination meeting on February 7, 2026.
Protestor was a candidate on the Empower slate in local union 728’s local officer election on November 18, 2025. See Shaw, 2025 ESD 14 (Nov. 12, 2025).
Local 728 is entitled to 14 delegates and 7 alternate delegates to the Convention. Pursuant to Local 728’s local union election plan (“LUEP”), the nomination notice for Local 728’s nomination meeting was mailed on January 9, 2026. The nomination meeting was held on February 7, 2026, at which Shaw was nominated as a candidate on the Empower Slate. Evette Avery, another candidate on the Empower Slate submitted the slate declaration on February 10, 2026. Local 728’s delegate election was held on April 10, 2026. A total of 917 ballots were cast. 853 valid ballots were counted, 12 ballots were void, and 51 unresolved challenged ballots. The winning delegate with the least number of votes received 697 votes. The losing delegate with the most votes received 144 votes making the margin in the delegate election 553 or 502 assuming all unresolved challenged ballots were votes for the losing delegate with the most votes.
APPLICABLE RULES & ANALYSIS
Protestor claims that Higdon’s comments of appreciation and support of the campaign photographs constitutes an employer contribution or acceptance of an employer contribution in violation of Article XI and Article VII, Section 12.
Article VII, Section 12 of the Rules governs the freedom to exercise political rights. Specifically, under Article VII, Section 12(a), “[a]ll 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.” No candidate or member is permitted to campaign during his or her working hours. Id.
Article XI prohibits employer contributions and the acceptance of such contributions by any candidate. Specifically, Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) provides:
No 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 influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution…These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer and include contributions or use of employer stationery, equipment, facilities, and personnel.
The subject post is plainly campaign material posted on the New Vision’s campaign website. The photographs posted on the New Vision Facebook page depict members standing in front of, and in one instance inside, a UPS shifter while holding campaign materials, accompanied by a caption expressing support for the New Vision slate. This context forecloses any reasonable interpretation that the employer endorsed the slate. The post attributes the activity to individual members and expressly urges a vote for the slate, making clear that the message is campaign advocacy, not employer sponsorship. Consistent with Ostrach & Hoffa 2006, 2006 ESD 304 (June 24, 2006), the surrounding presentation and message eliminate any inference of employer endorsement, even where members are shown in work settings or uniforms. Nor does the depiction of members in employer-provided uniforms or around employer equipment constitute an improper employer contribution. See Bennett, 2016 ESD 204 (May 6, 2016) (denying protest alleging slate accepted impermissible employer contribution by distributing a campaign flyer depicting its slate members in employer-provided uniforms or vehicles); Ostrach, 2006 ESD 304 (holding that campaign literature may depict members “working in or around equipment used in their jobs, or wearing work uniforms,” in real or staged work settings). Thus, the photographs are not improper employer contributions and Higdon’s conduct is protected by the Rules. See Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(a) and (b).
Accordingly, we DENY the allegations concerning improper contributions.
Retaliation, Discrimination, and Collusion
Article VII, Section 12(a) describes activity protected by the Rules as follows:
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.
Article VII, Section 12(g) prohibits retaliation and the threat of retaliation against any member for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules. To show retaliation, protestor must show that 1) she engaged in activity protected by the Rules, (2) the charged party took adverse action against her, and (3) the protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action. Bundrant, 2005 ESD 19 at 10 (October 25, 2005), aff’d, 05 EAM 4 (November 15, 2005) (quoting Cooper, 2005 ESD 8 (September 2, 2005). The existence of a reasonable independent basis for the decision to terminate is a defense to an allegation of improper motivation so long as it is not shown to be a pretext. The Election Supervisor will not find retaliation if he concludes that the union officer or entity would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protestor’s protected conduct. Gilmartin, P32 (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 EAM 75. See Leal, P51 (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 30; Wsol, P95 (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 17.
For the purpose of our analysis here, there is no question that protestor engaged in protected activity as she ran as a candidate on the Empower State and campaigned throughout the delegate election. However, while protestor’s employment was terminated,[3] she filed this protest against Higdon. Higdon is not her employer, did not terminate her employment, did not have the authority to terminate her employment, was not involved in and did not influence the termination of her employment. We have no evidence to support a finding that Higdon took adverse action against her that was motivated, even in part, due to her protected activity. Thus, protestor has failed to meet the second and third elements of her retaliation claim. Accordingly, we do not find that Higdon violated the Rules.[4]
The protestor’s “double standard” or disparate treatment claim similarly fails. The Rules prohibit discrimination in access to union or employer resources for campaign purposes; they do not establish a general mechanism to review employer disciplinary decisions, particularly where, as here, the employer is not charged and the union is not shown to have directed or influenced the discipline. There is no evidence that Higdon or Local 728 granted unequal access to union resources or treated candidates differently in connection with campaign activity. Higdon’s comment on a campaign social media post constitutes protected expression and does not involve the use of resources in a discriminatory manner.
Finally, the allegation of “collusion” is unsupported. The protest presents no evidence of any agreement, coordination, or communication between Higdon and UPS concerning the protestor’s discipline or any campaign-related activity. An assertion that an employer acted on an anonymous complaint, which Higdon denies making, without more, does not establish collusion or an improper employer contribution under the Rules. Nor does the record show that Higdon sought, obtained, or accepted assistance from the employer to influence the election. Accordingly, this claim is denied.
For all the foregoing reasons, we DENY this protest in its 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 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 107
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Demetria Shaw
Matt Higdon
John Palmer
Richard Hooker
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Felicia Hardesty
Kelly Hogan
[1] We did not cross-reference individual user names who liked, commented, or otherwise reacted to the post or its comments to determine whether any reactions were duplicative. Instead, we relied on the aggregate number of reactions, which likely overstates unique engagement, in order to give the protestor the benefit of the doubt.
[2] The investigator tried to interview Clark but was informed that he would not speak with her pursuant to UPS policy. The investigator was informed that Brunson is the appropriate point of contact as liaison between Local 728 and UPS.
[3] We note that protestor’s employment was terminated on January 5, 2026, and the protest was filed in March.
[4] Even if the employer’s conduct were at issue, the record demonstrates an articulated, independent basis for her discharge—misuse of employer equipment, conducting personal business while on company time, being dishonest—which defeats a claim of retaliatory motive absent evidence of pretext. No such pretext is shown here.