Hennessy, 2026 ESD 120
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
)
IN RE: BEN ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 120
HENNESSY, )
) Issued: August 17, 2026
Protester. )
) OES Case No. P-109-030426
)
)
INTRODUCTION
Ben Hennessy, a member of Teamsters Local 31 and a candidate for delegate on the Stan Hennessy Teamsters United Slate, filed this protest against Mark Bethel and Sean St. Pierre, candidates for delegate on the Mark Bethel Unity Slate. Hennessy alleges that Bethel and St. Pierre engaged in campaign activity on employer property at multiple worksites, in violation of Article VII, Section 12(d) of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).
Jack Sullens of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.
BACKGROUND & INVESTIGATION
The protester alleges that candidates on the Mark Bethel Unity Slate engaged in campaign activity on employer property at Intermodex (formerly Coast 2000 Terminals Ltd.), Westport Portside Terminals, Canadian Springs Water, CHEP Canada, and the UPS Fraser Valley Centre where Local 31 members are employed. The activity included distributing campaign literature, posting campaign materials on union bulletin boards inside work areas, and directly soliciting votes from members within employer-controlled facilities during working hours and employee break periods. According to the protester, candidates from the Bethel Unity Slate entered employer-controlled workplaces and engaged in campaign activity in areas where no pre-existing right of campaign access exists in violation of the Rules.
The protested conduct allegedly involved coordinated activity by multiple candidates across the worksites and is alleged to have occurred on March 3, 2026, during the final week of the delegate election campaign. Hennessy filed his protest on March 4, 2026. The ballot count occurred on March 9, 2026, and the Stan Hennessy Teamsters United Slate prevailed over the Mark Bethel Unity Slate.
The OES interviewed both Ben Hennessy and Mark Bethel twice, and reviewed written submissions by both. The OES also reviewed extensive documentation submitted by Hennessy, including statements, photographs, audio recordings, and social media postings.
Bethel acknowledged that he and other members of the Mark Bethel Unity Slate engaged in all of the alleged campaign activity inside the employer facilities named in the protest. He agreed that the campaigning at Intermodex, Westport Portside Terminals and Canadian Springs Water took place during the final week of the delegate election campaign, but stated that the campaigning at CHEP Canada and UPS Frasier Valley Center took place on or about February 11 and 12, 2026.
Bethel stated that these facilities all employ members of Teamsters Local 31, who were the intended audience of his campaign. The campaign activity included distributing campaign literature and posting campaign materials on union bulletin boards that were inside work areas, and directly soliciting votes from Local 31 members. Bethel stated that at all of the facilities at issue, he requested and was granted permission to campaign in all of the locations where members generally gather, including lunchrooms, parking lots, smoking areas and other common areas. All employers also granted access to travel in between the different locations where members generally gather. This access was equally available to both slates.
It is undisputed that at each of the five worksites visited by the Mark Bethel Unity Slate during February and March, Stan Hennessy Teamsters United Slate campaign literature was in place on designated union bulletin boards prior to the arrival of members of the Mark Bethel Unity Slate. It is unknown who placed these materials on the bulletin boards.
APPLICABLE LAW
The protester alleges that the actions taken by Bethel, St. Pierre and other members of the Mark Bethel Unity Slate violated Article VII, Section 12(d) of the Rules. This provision states:
(d) No restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity. Similarly, no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fund-raising events, or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a non-discriminatory basis.
Although not cited by the protester, the acts alleged also implicate Article VII, Sections 12(e) and 12(f). These provisions state, in pertinent part:
(e) Subject to the limitations in this Subsection, (i) a candidate for delegate or alternate delegate and any member of the candidate’s Local Union may distribute literature and/or otherwise solicit support in connection with such candidacy in any parking lot used by that Local Union’s members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment; (ii) each member of a candidate’s Local Union has the reciprocal right to receive such literature and/or solicitation of support from such candidate or candidate’s advocate; (iii) a candidate for International office and any Union member within the regional area(s) in which said candidate is seeking office may distribute literature and/or otherwise solicit support in connection with such candidacy in any parking lot used by Union members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment in said regional area(s); (iv) each member of the International Union who is employed within the regional area(s) in which said candidate is seeking office has the reciprocal right to receive such literature and/or solicitation of support from such candidate for International office or candidate’s advocate.
The foregoing rights are available only in connection with campaigning during the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election conducted pursuant to the Final Order and only during hours when the parking lot is normally open to employees. The rights guaranteed in this Subsection are not available to an employee on working time, may not be exercised among employees who are on working time and do not extend to campaigning which would materially interfere with the normal business activities of the employer. An employer may require reasonable identification to assure that a person seeking access to an employee parking lot pursuant to this rule is a candidate or other member entitled to such access. Nothing in this Subsection shall entitle any candidate or other Union member to access to any other part of premises owned, leased, operated, or used by an employer or to access to a parking lot for purposes or under circumstances other than as set forth herein.
. . .
(f) An employer’s discrimination between candidates in permitting access to its property shall constitute an improper contribution to the candidate(s) who benefit from such discrimination.
. . .
Also relevant here is Article XIII, Section 3(b), which provides that “[p]ost-election protests shall only be considered and remedied if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election, except that any timely protest alleging improper threats, coercion, intimidation, acts of violence or retaliation for exercising any right protected by these Rules shall be considered and remedied without regard to whether the alleged violation affected the outcome of an election.”
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Both parties agree that on March 3, 2026, members of the Mark Bethel Unity Slate visited three worksites (Intermodex, Westport Portside Terminals and Canadian Springs Water) and campaigned for that slate by distributing campaign literature, posting campaign materials on union bulletin boards inside work areas, and soliciting votes from members within these facilities during working hours and employee break periods.[1] The areas visited included lunchrooms, parking lots, smoking areas and other common areas where members generally gather.
Although this protest was filed pre-election, we consider it in a post-election context. See Wood, 2011 ESD 210 (April 14, 2011). As stated above, “[p]ost-election protests shall only be considered and remedied if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election,” except in circumstances not applicable here. Article XIII, Section 3(b). As the Hennessy Slate won the delegate election, we find that the violations alleged here did not affect the outcome of the election, and we DENY the protest on that basis. Id.; Wood, 2011 ESD 210. See also Wood, 2011 ESD 211 (April 14, 2011) (“As Wood won the delegate election, we find that the alleged violation at issue here did not affect the outcome of the election, and we DENY the protest on that basis.”); Hull, 2001 EAD 313 (April 17, 2001) (“The 938 Members slate won every delegate and alternate delegate seat. Accordingly, we need not resolve the conflict in the evidence because the protested conduct, if proven, did not affect the outcome of the election. For this reason alone, we DENY this protest.”); Kremer, Jensen et al., 2011 ESD 168 (Mar. 20, 2011) (“All candidates on the Anybody But Hoffa slate won their elections for delegate and alternate delegate. Accordingly, the alleged violations, even if proven, did not affect the outcome of the election . . . [and] we DISMISS these protests.”).
Were we to consider the protest on its merits, we would find no Rules violation. Bethel, whom we find credible, stated that he obtained express permission from all of the employers to enter the facilities and to campaign in the locations where the challenged campaigning occurred, and that such access was available to both slates.
Both parties also agree that prior to the arrival of the Mark Bethel Unity Slate at the five worksites, someone had posted campaign materials supporting the Stan Hennessy Teamsters United Slate on union bulletin boards at these worksites. It is not known who posted these materials, and whether they were posted by employees or non-employees of the employers at issue. Notwithstanding, this shows that supporters or members of both slates had access to campaign at these worksites. Additionally, we are aware of no policy that prohibits such campaigning at these locations and have no evidence that any employer granted access to the Mark Bethel Unity Slate while denying comparable access to the Stan Hennessy Teamsters United Slate.
“The Rules provide only two forms of access for non-employees to employer premises: (1) under the ‘parking lot rule,’ Article VII, Section 12(e), which creates a limited right for non-employees to campaign in parking lots where members park their cars; and (2) to other parts of employer premises if non-employees are expressly granted such access or have had past access under a ‘preexisting’ right or practice.” Morales & Medina, 2021 ESD 77 (March 10, 2021) (citations omitted). See Article VII, Section 12(e) (“a candidate for delegate or alternate delegate and any member of the candidate’s Local Union may distribute literature and/or otherwise solicit support in connection with such candidacy in any parking lot used by that Local Union’s members to park their vehicles in connection with their employment. . . . Nothing in this Subsection shall entitle any candidate or other Union member to access to any other part of premises owned, leased, operated, or used by an employer . . . .”). See also Aldana, 2026 ESD 102 (June 1, 2026) (“Article VII, Section 12(e) expressly limits candidates’ access rights to employee parking lots and affirmatively provides that nothing in the Rule entitles candidates to access to other areas of the employer’s premises”).
“Where a past practice exists, Article VII, Section 12(d) declares that ‘[n]o restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature . . . or engage in similar activities on employer . . . premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a non-discriminatory basis.’” Morales & Medina, 2021 ESD 77 (March 10, 2021) (alterations in original). “To find such a past practice, ‘the evidence must show knowledge and toleration on the part of the employer. Evidence of unauthorized and unknown incidents is insufficient.’” Id.
Here, the evidence shows, and Bethel admits, that he and other members of the Mark Bethel Unity Slate entered employer-controlled areas beyond the parking lots of these facilities. This behavior violates the Rules unless he and the other members of his Slate were “expressly granted such access or have had past access under a ‘preexisting’ right or practice.” Morales & Medina, 2021 ESD 77 (March 10, 2021) (citations omitted).
As set forth above, Bethel sought and was granted express permission from all of the employers to campaign inside the facilities, including in the areas where campaigning occurred. Given this fact, the challenged campaigning was done in accord with the Rules. See Vasquez, 2021 USD 104 (April 9, 2021) (respondents may “establish a right protected by Article VII, Section 12(d) . . . where the employer granted them permission to enter for the purpose of campaigning.”).[2]
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.
Timothy S. Hillman
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
2026 ESD 120
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Ben Hennessy
Mark Bethel
Sean St. Pierre
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
Ellyn Lazar
Jack Sullens
Kelly Hogan
[1] Bethel stated, and we find, that similar visits to CHEP Canada and UPS Frasier Valley Center took place on or about February 11 and 12, 2026. Thus, the protest, filed several weeks later, may be untimely as to these two visits. See Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules (protests “must be filed within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived.”). Notwithstanding, for the same reasons set forth herein, we deny the protest based on the fact that Hennessy’s entire slate won the election, and because we do not find that there was a violation of the Rules.
[2] Because we find that Bethel obtained permission to campaign inside the facilities, we need not determine whether he and the members of his slate had a “preexisting right” to do so.