Palmer et al, 2026 ESD 119
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: PALMER & FEARLESS )
SLATE and GLEASON & OZ ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 119
SLATE, )
) Issued: August 13, 2026
Protestors. )
______________________________) OES Case No. P-155-061526;
P-157-061626
INTRODUCTION
The IBT Convention was held June 15-18, 2026, at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada. On June 15, 2026, John Palmer, a candidate for General Secretary-Treasurer for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters on the Fearless Slate, filed a protest on behalf of the Fearless Slate against the O’Brien Zuckerman Teamsters United 2026 Slate (“OZ Slate”) alleging that Caesars Palace employees wore lapel pins in support of the OZ Slate while on duty in violation of Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) of the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election Rules (the “Rules”) and Part I(2) of the Supplemental Election Supervisor Rules for the 31 International IBT Convention (“Convention Rules”) (P-155-061526, referred to herein as “P-155”).
The following day, Edward Gleason filed a protest on behalf of the O’Brien-Zuckerman Teamsters United 2026 Slate (the “OZ Slate”) against Palmer and the Fearless Slate alleging that (1) by filing P-155, Palmer and the Fearless Slate filed a false and frivolous protest in retaliation against the OZ Slate for challenging the eligibility of one of its candidates (see O’Brien Zuckerman Teamsters United 2026 Slate, 2026 ESD 112 (June 15, 2026) (“2026 ESD 112”)); (2) improperly sought to deny members of Local 986 employed at Cesars Palace their right to campaign; and (3) that Palmer unlawfully surveilled, harassed and intimidated members and their guests (P-157-061626, referred to herein as “P-157”). These protests arise out of the same or similar underlying events and were consolidated for decision.
On Tuesday, June 16, 2026, the duly elected and certified delegates cast their ballots for all contested offices. After the counting of the ballots, no candidate from the Fearless Slate gained at least 5% of the ballots cast by delegates, the threshold for appearing on the ballot for an International IBT election by IBT members. As a result, all candidates from the OZ Slate were deemed duly elected.
Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor investigated these protests. The investigation included speaking with Palmer, Gleason, Tim Vera, President Local 986, and multiple Caesars Palace employees including Brenner Bruce, Hotel Manager, Blyze Murphy, Luxury Hotel Operations Manager, and Rachael Gabel, Assistant Director of Catering and Convention Services, as well as review of relevant materials including, but not limited to, a written statement by Caesars Palace front desk employee, Rae Mer, about her interaction with Palmer on June 13th, and the subject Labor Agreements between Caesars Palace and Local 986.
BACKGROUND & INVESTIGATION
Palmer alleges that on June 13-15, 2026, many of Caesars Palace employees who were checking in members including delegates and their guests were wearing lapel pins supporting the OZ Slate in violation of the Rules. Specifically, Palmer claims that such conduct constituted improper employer contributions in violation of Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules. Palmer also alleges that the pins were “used as electioneering during convention registration” in violation of the Election Supervisor’s Rules for the 31st IBT International Convention, Part I (2).
Palmer stated that he checked in at the front desk at Caesars Palace on June 13, 2026. At the end of this process, he noticed that the desk agent was wearing an OZ lapel pin on her uniform. Palmer said that he told the worker that she could not wear the pin while on duty and had to remove it immediately. She refused to do so.
Palmer stated that over the next few days he took multiple photographs of Caesars Palace employees checking in members while wearing OZ pins. Palmer acknowledged that the Caesars Palace Desk Manager and Floor Manager directed him to stop confronting employees and taking photographs of them.
Caesars Palace front desk employee Rae Mer stated that she checked Palmer in on June 13, 2026. She said that their initial interaction was courteous and professional but, at some point, she noticed him looking at the OZ pin she was wearing. After completing his transaction, Palmer left the area. Mer stated that about 20 minutes later, Palmer returned and told her that he was running against OZ and wanted her to take off the pin. She said that he became “increasingly aggressive,” repeatedly demanding that she remove the pin and insisting on taking a photograph of her. Mer declined to do so stating that she was permitted to wear the pin. Mer told Palmer, “Absolutely not. You are more than welcome to speak with my managers, as they have not instructed me to remove the pin since I began wearing it.” According to Mer, Palmer’s conduct did not stop and one of her colleagues contacted her manager, Blyze Murphy, who arrived shortly thereafter.
Blyze Murphy, Luxury Hotel Operations Manager, confirmed that Caesars management was notified about a guest, later identified as Palmer, taking photographs of employees in the registration area and advising them that they could not wear the pins. Management confirmed that employees were permitted to wear the pins but were not required to. Specifically, Murphy stated that employees were advised that they could choose whether or not to wear the OZ pins, like any other pin. Murphy stated that, consistent with its past practice and policy, Caesars Palace did not encourage or discourage employees from wearing the OZ pins.
Brenner Bruce, Caesars Palace Hotel Manager, stated that he observed Palmer yelling at employees at the front desk about wearing pins. Later that same day, Palmer returned to the lobby and started taking pictures of employees and their pins, and was subsequently instructed not to take pictures of staff without permission. According to Bruce, Palmer yelled at him about employees wearing the OZ pin. Bruce informed Palmer that if he did not stop taking photographs, Bruce would call security. Palmer subsequently left the lobby. Bruce stated that Caesars Palace permits its employees to wear pins including campaign pins like the OZ pins at issue here, if they so choose, and that Caesars Palace does not encourage or discourage employees to wear them.
Rachel Gabel, Assistant Director of Catering and Convention Services, confirmed that Caesars Palace management did not encourage, instruct, or require employees to wear the OZ pins. She stated that participation was entirely voluntary and left to the discretion of each employee.
Tim Vera, President of Local 986, confirmed that the front desk workers at Ceasars Palace are members of Local 986. He was aware that some of them were wearing OZ pins during the Convention—which he stated was allowed. According to Vera, the OZ campaign offered the pins to employees—Caesars Palace did not pay for or provide the pins.
Gleason confirmed that the OZ campaign purchased the pins that some of the front desk employees were wearing at the Convention.
Noting that employees have continued to wear the pins even after the Convention, Vera explained that many Caesars Palace employees collect and continue to wear lots of different types of pins on their lanyards long after the “event” they relate to, including pins related to elections or campaigns, local union matters, and other logo pins. He stated that this does not violate any employer policy or rule. Rather, Caesars Palace has a long-standing practice allowing employees to wear pins, including campaign pins during working hours. Vera stated that, generally, employees are permitted to wear pins or otherwise present themselves as they please, unless and until management determines that it is distracting to the customers. He stated that the decision to wear or not wear any particular pin, including the subject OZ pins, is a personal decision made by each employee. Vera said this is, and has been, the practice for Caesars’ properties.
Vera stated that he was aware of Palmer’s objections to the employees wearing OZ pins, his efforts to convince management to instruct their employees to stop wearing them, and that Palmer was directed by both the Desk and Floor Manager to stop. According to Vera, Caesars Palace declined instruct its employees to remove the pins because it has been a long-standing practice to permit employees to wear them.
Review of the Labor Agreements confirm that Caesars Palace front desk employees are covered by the Local 986 bargaining unit. Further, consistent with the statements from Caesars Palace employees and Vera, the Labor Agreements do not contain any restrictions on wearing campaign pins. The investigator notified Palmer of these facts and asked him to provide any additional evidence he had to support his allegations. He did not provide any additional evidence.
P-155
Article VII, Section 12(a), provides all members the right to participate in campaign activities including their right to support or oppose any candidate and aid or campaign for any candidate.
Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) states:
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 are not limited to employers that have contracts with the Union; they extend to every employer, regardless of the nature of the business and include, but are not limited to, any political action organization that employs any staff; any nonprofit organization, such as a church or civic group that employs any staff; and any law firm or professional organization that employs any staff. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer and include contributions or use of employer stationery, equipment, facilities, and personnel.
However, Article VII, Section 12(d) protects members’ preexisting rights to engage in campaign activity on employer premises. The Election Supervisor has repeatedly recognized that such preexisting rights include the right to wear campaign buttons and insignia where workplace practice permits such activity. See e.g., Misich, 2006 ESD 323, aff’d, 06 EAM 61 (employees possessed a preexisting right to wear campaign buttons based on longstanding workplace practice); Vaule, 2006 ESD 140 (preexisting rights include wearing campaign emblems on buttons, hats, and clothing while working).
Palmer alleges that the OZ Slate violated Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules by accepting alleged improper contributions by Caesars Palace.[1] Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) prohibits employers from contributing, directly or indirectly, anything of value where the purpose, object, or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence the election of a candidate and prohibits candidates from accepting any such contribution. The evidence here establishes that Caesars Palace does not prohibit campaign pins and, in fact, has a longstanding practice permitting employees to wear such pins while working. Employees regularly wear a variety of pins relating to union matters, elections, local union activities, events, and other subjects. The evidence further establishes that the OZ pins were paid for and supplied by the OZ campaign not Caesars,[2] that employees voluntarily chose whether to wear them, and that, consistent with its policy and practice, management did not instruct, encourage or require employees to wear them. There is no evidence that Caesars Palace selectively permitted OZ campaign pins while prohibiting the same in support of the Fearless Slate. To the contrary, the record demonstrates a generally permissive and content-neutral practice permitting employees to wear campaign pins.
Under these circumstances, we find that Caesars Palace front desk employees were permitted to wear the OZ pins consistent with their pre-existing rights, were not improper employer contributions, and deny this aspect of Palmer’s protest.
We also deny Palmer’s allegation regarding activity in the Convention Registration Ballroom. Palmer further alleges that pursuant to the Convention Rules, “convention areas ‘during convention registration…are politically neutral locations.’ The OZ lapel pins are being used as electioneering during convention registration in violation” of the Convention Rules. However, he did not include any factual allegations to support this allegation in his protest. Moreover, during the investigation, Palmer did not provide any evidence supporting this claim and told the investigator that he did not intend to pursue it. Finding no evidence to support these allegations, we also deny this aspect of Plamer’s protest.
For the reasons set forth herein, we DENY P-155.
P-157
On July 29, 2026, following the outcome of the Convention, the OZ Slate notified the OES in writing that it voluntarily withdrew P-157 against Palmer for retaliation, harassment, intimidation and unlawful surveillance. Finding that withdrawal effectuates the purpose of the Rules, we permit the protest to be WITHDRAWN.
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.
Timothy S. Hillman
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
John Palmer
Richard Hooker
Retu Singla
Seth Goldstein
sgoldstein@workingpeopleslaw.com
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Deborah Schaaf
Kelly Hogan
[1] P-155 is filed against only the OZ Slate; not Caesars Palace or any individual employees.
[2] An employer is defined as “any individual, corporation, trust, organization or other entity that employs another, paying monetary or other compensation in exchange for that individual’s services, but does not include a candidate’s campaign or campaign organization or a caucus or group of Union members, provided that such caucus or group is itself financed exclusively from contributions permitted under the Rules.” Rules, Definition 18 (emphasis added).