Battiste & Fearless Slate, 2026 ESD 122
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: BATTISTE & FEARLESS )
SLATE )
) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 122
)
Protestor. ) Issued: September 9, 2026
)
) OES Case No. P-159-061826
INTRODUCTION
Marianna Battiste (“Battiste”), a 2026 candidate for Trustee on the Fearless Slate, filed this protest on her own behalf and on behalf of the Fearless Slate “and/or other affected candidates and witnesses” against Sean O’Brien, Fred Zuckerman, , Francis “Frank” Hughes and Shawn Hughes, both members of Sean O’Brien’s security detail at the IBT Convention, the OZ Slate, and “other OZ Slate candidates, IBT officers, employees, security personnel, family members, friends, supporters, representatives, and agents identified through investigation.”
OES Investigator Joe F. Childers investigated this protest. The investigation included interviewing protestor Marianna Battiste, John Palmer, Richard Hooker, OES Senior Project Supervisor Bill Broberg, OES Adjunct Coordinator Steve Pittman, and Frank Hughes, who was on security detail at the Convention for O’Brien.
PROTEST
The IBT International Convention was held June 15, 2026, through June 18, 2026, at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada. Nominations for all IBT officers took place on the morning of June 15. The final candidates to be nominated that morning were for the offices of General Secretary-Treasurer and General President. There were two candidates nominated for General Secretary-Treasurer, John Palmer (“Palmer”) on the Fearless Slate, and Fred Zuckerman (“Zuckerman”) on the OZ Slate. Likewise, there were two candidates nominated for General President, Richard Hooker, Jr. (“Hooker”) on the Fearless Slate, and Sean O’Brien (O’Brien) on the OZ Slate.
Battiste alleges that immediately before Palmer and Hooker were to be ushered into the Convention Hall to accept their respective nominations, they were subjected to a targeted act of intimidation, physical obstruction, and interference. The protest alleges that the incident occurred outside the Convention Hall in the “staging and escort” area where Fearless candidates were lined up to be escorted into the Hall by OES personnel to accept their nominations. In her protest, Battiste alleges that the intimidation took place after the other Fearless candidates had been escorted into the Hall to accept their nominations, and while Palmer and Hooker remained outside and were “temporarily separated from the rest of their slate.”
The protest alleges that the respondents, including O’Brien, Zuckerman, Francis Hughes, Shawn Hughes, and other family members and supporters of the OZ Slate, “surrounded Hooker and Palmer, occupied the space around them, stood in or near their path, and blocked or restricted their means of movement while the two opposition candidates were isolated and awaiting escort to the nomination floor.” Protestor claims that due to the number of participants, their physical positioning, the institutional authority of O’Brien and Zuckerman, and the presence of O’Brien’s security detail, this amounted to intimidation in violation of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Election (“Rules”). The protest further alleges that the conduct “reasonably appeared calculated to intimidate, unsettle, frighten, distract, provoke, humiliate, or discourage Hooker and Palmer immediately before their nomination appearances.”
INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS
During the investigation, Battiste stated that she personally witnessed the alleged intimidation. However, her account during the investigation differed materially from the allegations set forth in the protest. Her protest alleged that Palmer and Hooker were “isolated” away from their other slate members and were the only two Fearless Slate candidates remaining in the staging area at the time of intimidation. By contrast, when interviewed Battiste stated that the Fearless Slate candidates were all in the staging area outside of the Convention Hall when the intimidation occurred. Battiste’s later account is consistent with the statements of Broberg, the OES representative responsible for escorting candidates through door 3 to microphone 6 to accept their nominations. Broberg explained that candidates for International office who were not also delegates or alternate delegates to the Convention remained outside door 3 and were only escorted onto the floor to accept nominations when their time to accept arrived.[1] To ensure an orderly process, no more than two candidates, one from each slate aspiring to the same office, would be escorted into the Hall at a time to accept their nominations. After accepting, they were escorted out of the Convention Hall through the same door 3.
Battiste told our investigator that she was standing “across” from Hooker near door 3, the entrance for candidates to go to microphone 6 to accept their nominations. She stated that when it was time for candidates for General President to enter the Hall, O’Brien entered ahead of Hooker through a door reserved for the Fearless Slate candidates to enter rather than entering through the OZ Slate door. This is contrary to Broberg’s statements that there was only one door, door 3, used to escort all candidates to microphone 6.
When interviewed, Battiste stated that O’Brien, his security detail, and his family members surrounded not only Hooker and Palmer, but also her. She denied that the intimidators said anything to the Fearless Slate members, threatened them, or touched them; however, she claims that their body expressions amounted to intimidation. She maintains that the respondents came over to an area where they were not supposed to be standing, and which was reserved for the Fearless Slate members. Battiste stated that O’Brien “strutted” toward her and when she would not move, stopped and got in front of Hooker.
Broberg was stationed primarily inside the Convention Hall near microphone 6 but regularly exited door 3 to observe candidates waiting to be escorted into the Hall to accept their nominations. He did not witness the events alleged in the protest and stated that he had no reason to believe that any intimidation occurred as maintained by the protestor. Likewise, OES representative Steve Pittman, who assisted Broberg in escorting candidates to the microphone to accept nominations, and who was stationed primarily near door 3 on the inside of the Hall, did not observe any acts of intimidation just prior to Hooker, Palmer, O’Brien, and Zuckerman accepting their nominations.
Palmer told our investigator that he did not remember any intimidation happening as described in the protest. In fact, he stated that he tried to dissuade Battiste from filing the instant protest, and told her she was wasting her time in doing so.
Hooker likewise denied that there was any intimidation by O’Brien, Zuckerman, or their supporters or security detail as alleged in the protest. He stated that O’Brien and Zuckerman were in the proximate area near where he and Palmer were standing; however, this is near door 3, the only entrance to the Convention Hall for candidates to enter to accept nominations. Hooker confirmed Broberg’s statement that door 3 was the only door used by candidates entering the Hall to accept their nominations. Hooker and O’Brien were escorted into the Hall at the same time, as were Palmer and Zuckerman. Hooker denied that O’Brien and Zuckerman or their supporters surrounded them or tried to intimidate them. In fact, Hooker stated that some members of the Fearless Slate went over and shook O’Brien’s hand since he was General President. Hooker stated that O’Brien’s security detail was only present because O’Brien was the General President and because of his office was entitled to security. He stated that all four candidates for General President and General Secretary-Treasurer entered the Hall near the same time.
Frank Hughes and Shawn Hughes, his brother, were at the Convention providing security for Mr. O’Brien, and were alleged by the protestor to have participated in the intimidation of Hooker and Palmer. Frank Hughes stated that at the time O’Brien and Hooker, and Zuckerman and Palmer were ushered into the Hall to accept nomination, he and Shawn Hughes were actually inside the Hall waiting for the candidates to enter the Hall. He denied that he was outside the Hall in the staging area during the time period in question. Hughes specifically denied the allegations of the protest that he had participated in intimidation of Palmer and Hooker. Hughes also stated that the day before the nominations he passed Hooker in the hall and they exchanged pleasantries.
APPLICABLE RULES AND ANALYSIS
Article VII, Section 12(g) of the Rules states:
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.
Intimidation constitutes retaliation not protected by the Rules. See Zuckerman, 2015 ESD 7 (July 15, 2025). Intimidation occurs where a member engages in physically or verbally aggressive behavior that threatens actual harm. Hoffa-Hall 2011, 2011 ESD 323 (September 11, 2011), aff’d 11 EAM 57 (September 16, 2011) (verbal confrontation and touching person’s arm not intimidation); Pope, 2011 ESD 309 (August 5, 2011) (verbal confrontation followed by intentional striking and knockdown violated Rules); Passo, P-469-LU705-CHI (February 29, 1996) (finding intent to provoke physical confrontation to violate Rules), aff’d in relevant part, 96 Elec.App. 124 (KC) (March 13, 1996); Lopez, P-456-LU743-CHI (April 10, 1996) (finding “I’ll kill you” to violate Rules in light of ongoing animosity between the parties); Smith, P-600-LU150-CSF (April 30, 1996) (finding remark “you’ll be taken out of here in a body bag” to violate Rules); Kelly, P-600-LU705-CHI (March 27, 1991) (finding aggressive threat to “kick their ass” made in a menacing manner to be harassment in violation of the Rules).
Here, Battiste does not allege that she herself was retaliated against or intimidated. Rather, Battiste’s protest is premised on the assertion that Hooker and Palmer were intimidated. Yet, Hooker and Palmer unequivocally denied that any intimidation, obstruction, or threatening conduct occurred. Palmer told our investigator that he did not remember any incident resembling the allegations described in the protest and stated that he attempted to dissuade Battiste from filing it. Hooker likewise denied that O’Brien, Zuckerman, their supporters, or any member of O’Brien’s security detail intimidated, obstructed, or surrounded him. We find both Palmer and Hooker credible and assign substantial weight to their firsthand accounts as the individuals who allegedly were the targets of the misconduct.
Moreover, their accounts are corroborated by the OES staff present. Broberg and Pittman observed no acts of intimidation, and Broberg confirmed that all candidates used the same door 3. Hooker confirmed Broberg’s statement.
To the contrary, no witness corroborated Battiste’s version of events. In fact, Battiste’s description of the events changed during the investigation, contradicted key allegations made in her written protest, and was inconsistent with the nomination procedures described by OES personnel. This inconsistency is significant because her theory of intimidation as alleged in the protest derives from Palmer and Hooker being isolated from their slate supporters when the alleged confrontation occurred. Battiste’s subsequent account eliminated that critical factual premise. We do not find Battiste credible and we have no evidence that the alleged intimidation occurred.
Even if we credited Battiste’s version of events—which we do not—we would deny the protest on the independent ground that the conduct she describes does not constitute intimidation or retaliation under the Rules.
In Re: Fred Zuckerman, 2005 ESD 38, involved two opposing slates which were campaigning at the same time in a UPS employee parking lot in the delegate election at Local 89 in Louisville, Kentucky, where Zuckerman was then Principal Officer. The facts were largely not in dispute. The decision in that protest quoted the protest as follows:
At that time, Mr. Wayne Sharp, who appeared to be intoxicated, physically assaulted Local 89 member Kevin Oliva in the presence of supporters from both slates, as well as employees entering and exiting the United Parcel Services facility. The supporters and members of the United Rank and File Slate, including Mr. Darrell Hall, failed to intervene prior to the assault in an effort to prevent the incident. Arguably, those same supporters and members facilitated the incident. Unlike the United Rank and File Slate, during the argument Mr. Zuckerman specifically advised Mr. Oliva not to engage in any physical acts with Mr. Sharp.
Decision, p. 1.
In Zuckerman, accounts differed, but essentially the proof was that Mr. Sharp, a retiree and supporter of the slate opposing Zuckerman’s slate, got “nose to nose” with Oliva, a business agent and Zuckerman slate supporter, and words were exchanged, including “dumb motherfucker” and “get the fuck out of my face.” According to several witnesses, Sharp then chest bumped Oliva and tried to head butt him but Sharp’s cap got in the way. Sharp then finally “fairly gently” forearmed Oliva in the chest before being pulled away. Oliva did not respond with any touching or violence.
The Election Supervisor held that the above-described conduct—which included abusive language, chest-bumping, an attempted head-butt, and a forearm to the chest—did not constitute retaliation or intimidation in violation of the Rules. In pertinent part, Article VII, Section 12(a) of the Rules provides:
(a) 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.
. . .
Where any candidate or other member of the Union exercises or attempts to exercise any right under the Rules to campaign for or against the candidacy of any person for the position of delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer, members of the Union shall have the reciprocal right to hear or otherwise receive such campaign advocacy.
. . .
The Election Supervisor relied on a collection of cited similar cases in determining that the above conduct by Sharp did not constitute retaliation under the Rules, including the following passage from Cooper, 2005 ESD 8 (September 2, 2005):
Actual violence to suppress Rules-protected conduct has been found to be retaliation. See Teller, P1086 (December 27, 1991) (finding violation where a local trustee grabbed a member by the arm, tapped a finger into his chest, grabbed him by the jacket collar and pushed him against the wall); Stefanski, P282 (January 22, 1996), aff’d 96 EAM 94 (February 21, 1996) (finding violation where a member grabbed another’s arm in a menacing manner and ordered him to leave the facility where he was campaigning). Further, a threat of violence has also been held retaliation. See Smith, P600 (April 30, 1996) (finding remark “you’ll be taken out of here in a body bag” to violate Rules); Lopez, P456 (April 10, 1996) (finding “I’ll kill you” to violate Rules); and Kelly, P600 (March 27, 1991) (finding threat to “kick their ass” made in menacing manner in violate Rules). A threat of retaliation must be serious and immediate to amount to a Rules violation. Past decisions recognize that loud and sensational language is part of the election process, and the Rules do not bar that sort of zealous campaigning. See Yocum, 2000 EAD 18 (September 1, 2000) (loud, rude and obnoxious behavior not unlawful), aff’d, 00 EAM 5 (September 18, 2000); Wasilewski, 2000 EAD 14 (August 14, 2000) (words exchanged between two sides not unlawful); and Rudolph, P861 (August 29, 1996) (no violation where tempers flared briefly on each side, words and a few pushes were exchanged). Moreover, in the cases finding retaliation, the circumstances show that the retaliator aimed at protected activity in a way to send an immediate message to the victim, and that the victim could reasonably perceive the threat in that way.
Zuckerman, 2005 ESD 38, at p. 4. Accord: In Re: Hoffa-Hall 2011, 2011 ESD 323.
In order to constitute retaliation under Article VII, Section 12(g) of the Rules, aggressive conduct must include some actual imminent threat of violence or actual violence. Here, under Battiste’s own version of events, no respondent spoke threatening words, made threatening gestures, touched Hooker or Palmer, attempted to prevent them from entering the Convention Hall, interfered with the nomination process, or engaged in violence. At most, Battiste alleges that OZ candidates, supporters, and security personnel stood near Hooker and Palmer and projected an intimidating presence through their physical positioning and demeanor. Such conduct does not rise to the level of intimidation or retaliation prohibited by Article VII, Section 12(g).’
The record does not establish that the alleged conduct occurred. The individuals allegedly subjected to the intimidation deny that it occurred, no witness corroborated the allegations, and OES personnel observed nothing improper. Moreover, even if the events occurred substantially as Battiste described them, the conduct alleged would not constitute intimidation, retaliation, or interference with rights protected by the Rules.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the 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
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Marianna Battiste
Richard Hooker
John Palmer
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Joe Childers
Kelly Hogan
[1] Delegates and alternate delegates were permitted on the Convention Hall floor at all times during proceedings, but candidates for International office who were not delegates or alternate delegates were required to wait outside the Hall, only to be allowed on the floor to accept their nominations.