Hooker & Fearless Slate, 2026 ESD 127

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

 

                                                            )

IN RE: RICHARD HOOKER &        )                       Protest Decision 2026 ESD 127

FEARLESS SLATE,                          )

                                                            )                       Issued: October 28, 2026

                                                            )

Protestor.                                             )                       OES Case No. P-129-032426

 

INTRODUCTION

Richard Hooker Jr., on behalf of the Fearless Slate, filed a protest against General President Sean O’Brien, the O’Brien Zuckerman 2026 Teamsters United Slate (“OZ Slate”), and “known and unknown IBT representatives and employees who participated in improper conduct,” violating the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) and applicable law. Specifically, Hooker alleges that intimidation, coercion, and misuse of union resources were used to improperly influence organizers to support or campaign in support of the OZ Slate.

This protest arises from information provided by Caleb Keel, a former IBT organizer and current member of Local 391. On March 23, 2026, Hooker recorded and publicly posted a YouTube video with Keel in which Keel stated that while assigned to organizing in Sarasota, Florida with two or three other organizers, he was instructed by his IBT coordinator to collect signatures in support of the OZ campaign. The protest was filed the following day, March 24, 2026, upon Hooker learning of the allegations.

Based on Keel’s statements, the protest asserts two charges. First, that IBT field and staff organizers were directed to, and did, collect accreditation petition signatures for the OZ Slate while on union time and using union funds or resources. Second, it alleges that organizers were intimidated and coerced into making financial contributions to the OZ campaign.

THE INVESTIGATION

The Election Supervisor’s investigation into the alleged activities in this protest was extensive, spanning several months to ensure a thorough investigation into the statements and information provided. Representatives of the Election Supervisor Dolores Hall, Felicia Hardesty, Dennis Sarsany, and Kelly Hogan investigated this protest. The investigation included conducting interviews of nearly 20 witnesses,[1] often interviewing those witnesses on more than one occasion, reviewing materials submitted by witnesses, including podcast video and other materials submitted along with the protest, text messages with Waymon Hock, materials related to the OZ campaign’s Chicago fundraiser including, but not limited to, a copy of the flyer, agreement, ticket, and petition packet information, CCER information, and other materials obtained as part of the investigation including, but not limited to, accreditation petitions, the roster of the Southern Region petition passers, and the Certification of Candidate Accreditation of the OZ Slate dated September 18, 2025.

The Election Supervisor has carefully examined the allegations and evidence to determine whether violations of the Rules have occurred. This includes determining whether links between campaign activity and actions or threats, including those related to job status, have occurred in violation of the Rules. The Election Supervisor has determined that certain specific violations occurred requiring appropriate remedies. The remedies issued herein are designed to prevent future violations and to ensure that the union understands that it is prohibited from utilizing union resources to campaign and to ensure that members on the union staff understand their right to campaign under the Rules, free from any job related threats or consequences.

The following individuals were interviewed:

1. Caleb Keel
2. John Palmer
3. Scot  Godfrey
4. Mike Sherrill
5. Kevin Sittenauer
6. Robert Lopez
7. Scott Bunch
8. Magen Townsend
9. Matthew Rupley
10. Waymon Hock
11. Brandon Broadnax
12. Bianca Castro
13. Eric Hernandez
14. Nicole McKissic
15. Jasmine Dae
16. D’Andrea Geter
17. Cesar Calderon
18. James Donovan Jr.

Another witness was interviewed but asked to remain anonymous stating they feared retaliation for cooperating with the investigation. That witness will only be referred to as the witness or the anonymous witness throughout this decision. The Election Supervisor did not base or support his findings set forth herein on the testimony of the anonymous witness. Where the testimony was important to a line of investigation, the Election Supervisor made every effort to elicit usable evidence by other means, such as through a witness willing to be identified.

BACKGROUND[2]

The IBT has field organizers and staff organizers employed by the IBT and local unions. Organizers typically work long, irregular hours. Hock explained that in addition to the IBT and local organizers, there are also organizers who are employed and compensated for lost time from their regular employment, and pass-through employees who are paid by the locals but work for the IBT, who directs their activities. The IBT reimburses the locals for their wages and trains them.

It is undisputed that some accredited candidate petition signatures for the OZ Slate were collected in Florida during the spring of 2025.

Instructions to Collect Accredited Candidate Petitions

Florida law requires public sector unions that do not have at least 60% of a unit’s employees as members to be recertified annually. The union is not permitted to access the employer’s premises for that recertification purpose. The Teamsters represent Sarasota County employees but do not meet this 60% threshold. Accordingly, the IBT deploys a team of organizers to Sarasota each year to contact members and obtain signatures on a recertification form. A team of IBT organizers was sent to the Sarasota area during the Spring of 2025 for this recertification effort.

Caleb Keel is a driver for UPS and was formerly an organizer for the IBT. He stated that he worked as an organizer for about 2 ½ years before he was forced to resign shortly before appearing on the podcast with Hooker because he started voicing concerning about being pressured to make donations and collect signatures for the OZ Slate on union time.

Keel was assigned as team lead to the recertification organizing efforts in Sarasota, Florida from about April to June 2025. Matt Killen and Scot Godfrey, who were both organizers in the Southern Region, were also assigned to the Sarasota recertification campaign with Keel. All three organizers reported to their supervisor, Waymon Hock, who was in charge of the recertification efforts in Sarasota. They were all paid by the union for organizing and their travel expenses reimbursed by the union. Godfrey corroborated Keel’s statements.

Keel and Godfrey stated that during this time, the three organizers stayed at the Doubletree Hotel near the Sarasota airport, worked long hours with rotations of roughly 9 to 14 days, 10 to 12 hours per day and had no fixed working hours. They were not permitted to access to any county premises in connection with their recertification efforts so, they made telephone calls to members and arranged appointments to meet with them after work or in the evenings to obtain signatures for the recertification forms.

Keel and Godfrey stated that they were in Florida solely for the Sarasota County recertification organizing effort. However, they also stated that while there organizing, Hock directed them to collect accredited candidate petition signatures for the OZ Slate. Specifically, Hock instructed them to collect signatures for the OZ Slate from members at Tropicana in Bradenton, and UPS facilities in Sarasota, Bradenton, and Fort Myers. On one occasion, Hock called the organizers to Hock’s hotel in Bradenton, where he was staying in connection with his organizing efforts, for a meeting. Bradenton is located approximately 20-30 minutes from Sarasota. At that meeting, Hock gave them petitions, told them they were required to collect signatures, and directed them to the above referenced locations to do so. According to the witnesses, Hock also called them at the facilities in order to confirm that they were collecting signatures.

Review of a text message from Hock to one of the organizers shows that at 10:10 am on May 8, 2025, Hock texted him, “Well done solider[.]” At 2:16 that afternoon, Hock asked, “UPS this evening or morning?” [Keel??] responded, “Both, catch reload this afternoon and preload and drivers in the AM, drivers ST is 9:15[.]” Hock responded, “Time at UPS this afternoon” “Ok[.]” There was no organizing purpose for the organizers to be at UPS.

The anonymous witness stated that although Hock told organizers to collect signatures outside of their work hours (e.g., during breaks or lunch), it was understood “by everyone” that they were supposed to collect the signatures while organizing since they didn’t have set work hours or a lot of time off. The witness further stated that Hock would hand them petitions while organizing and tell them to take a break to collect signatures. Godfrey made similar statements.

Keel and Godfrey admitted that they and Killen followed Hock’s instructions and collected signatures at UPS facilities in Sarasota, Bradenton, Fort Myers and Naples, an ABF facility in Orlando, and Tropicana in Bradenton while organizing Sarasota County employees. Notably, they had no organizing campaign at these facilities where they gathered accreditation candidate petition signatures (since they were only there for the Sarasota County recertification efforts) and confirmed that the three of them collected the signatures from these facilities while on union time. Hock told them what time they needed to be at each facility for shift change. The organizers complied, went to these locations at shift change, and stayed until all employees were gone, typically spending three to four hours at the facility. Sometimes, after getting the petitions signed, they went back to where they made phone calls to Sarasota County employees. Keel and Godfrey stated that they would not have collected signatures if their supervisor, Hock, had not required them to do so.

The union reimbursed the organizers for their travel and expenses including car rentals. Keel stated that travel to and from the Fort Myers UPS facility (approximately two hours each way, plus several hours on site) consumed an entire day and that all of it was on union time.

Keel also said that Hock instructed him to take photographs while he gathered signatures to be posted to the Facebook page of Brent Taylor, a candidate on the OZ Slate for Southern Region Vice President’s, Facebook page, which he did. Review of Taylor’s Facebook page confirms that photographs of signatures being collected at UPS in Orlando on May 13, 2025 were posted.

Mike Sherrill, a staff organizer in the spring of 2025,[3] stated that Hock instructed him to collect signatures while organizing, which he did. According to Sherrill, Hock provided him with petitions and instructed him to go get signatures while running organizing campaigns, which he did at ABF, T-Force, and UPS in Dallas on union time.

Matthew Rupley, another organizer, collected accredited candidate petition signatures. He stated that Hock asked him to collect signatures but specifically instructed him to do so “off the clock,” before 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m., and that he “couldn’t use union resources.” Rupley said that he voluntarily collected signatures for the OZ Slate off the clock.

Bianca Castro, stated that while organizing during the spring of 2025, Bunch handed her a packet of accredited candidate petitions and told her to collect signatures at her next organizing event in Houston. She stated that he provided no further instructions about only doing so while off the clock. Nevertheless, Castro stated that she did not collect any simply because she was not interested. Review of the petitions submitted to the Election Supervisor for accreditation confirms that she did not collect any signatures. She did not report any threats of or adverse action following her decision not to collect signatures.

Palmer stated that organizers historically campaign and collect petition signatures while “on the clock,” a practice he described as spanning earlier administrations including the Carey and Hoffa administrations, but he did not have firsthand knowledge of the events alleged in this protest.

Waymon Hock stated that he was in charge of the Southern Region in the Spring of 2025.[4] Hock confirmed that in April 2025, he was a group coordinator working on an organizing campaign in Florida, that Keel, Godfrey, and Killen were on his team and under his direction and that Scott Bunch was lead coordinator. When asked about instructing any organizers to collect signatures for the OZ Slate, he denied it stating that wasn’t possible in April because the petition forms were not released until May.[5] He also said that although organizers do not have set schedules of 9-5, they are allowed to volunteer to collect signatures while off the clock.

 

Scott Bunch, who replaced Hock as Southern Region coordinator when Hock was promoted, stated that he was the lead organizer in Florida during the relevant time period and reported to Hock. Bunch acknowledged that he and other organizers in the Southern Region collected signatures in the spring of 2025 but said that the signatures he collected were “always signed on his off time, either early in the morning, on his lunch time or breaks.” He said that he told the other organizers that the collection of signatures had to be done on their own time, not union time. This statement was corroborated by other witnesses. Bunch said that he learned after the fact that Keel and Godfrey went to Tropicana, and Killen went to UPS, “on their own” early one morning. He denied having any knowledge beforehand.

a.      Organizers Who Did Not Collect Signatures or Reported Not Being Asked to Collect Signatures

Magen Townsend, Jasmine Dae, Brandon Broadnax, Kevin Sittenauer, and Cesar Calderone, all organizers, stated that they were not asked to get petitions signed and/or did not get petitions signed. Review of the petitions confirmed their statements as none of these individuals submitted petitions for the OZ Slate. None of them reported being made promotions of promotion if they collected signatures or any threats or retaliation for not collecting signatures.

 

D’Andrea Geter stated that accreditation candidate petition packets were made available at the fundraiser in Chicago but that she did not take or pass any. Review of the petitions confirmed that she did not collect signatures.

Eric Hernandez and Robert Lopez each stated that they collected signatures but not while on union time or with union resources. Lopez stated that collecting signatures while organizing was a “big no-no.”

Solicitation of Campaign Contributions

Witnesses described a general understanding that organizers were expected to contribute to and support the OZ campaign. At least two organizers who reported to Hock gave firsthand accounts of Hock using the phrase, “Teamsters currency.” Godfrey stated that, in connection with directing organizers to collect petition signatures, Hock told them, “this is Teamsters currency that if you want to be involved in organizing, you do everything you can for the current administration,” repeatedly referred to “Teamsters currency,” and told them that they wanted to be team players so that they could get a promotion to a staff organizer position, which is “where the money is.” Sherrill stated that Hock told organizers that they were expected to contribute to the OZ campaign and were “on the hook” for $2,000, calling it “Teamsters currency.” “Castro said that Bunch told her that collecting signatures and helping the OZ campaign would be good “Teamster currency.” Generally, the witnesses stated their understanding of this phrase to be thought of as good favor with the current administration. Palmer described the expectation of contributions as long-standing and occurring under prior administrations, but he had no firsthand knowledge of the events at issue.

The witnesses own experiences related to requests for, and contributions made to the OZ campaign varied. Godfrey stated that he donated approximately $1,000 in total, including raffle tickets for Taylor and one or two social events.

Rupley stated that Hock asked him for a $2,000 contribution, which he declined. Hock then asked if he could donate $500, and Rupley voluntarily did. Lopez, Calderone, and Hernandez also described their contributions as voluntary. Others, Dae, and Geter, described feeling “pressured” to make a contribution. The anonymous witness stated that he made a monetary contribution of less than $2,000.

a.      The Chicago Event

On May 20, 2025, the OZ campaign held a fundraising event in the Adams Room at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, the same hotel that the organizers conference was held. The event was that evening, from 6-8 pm. The fundraiser was run by James Donovan, Jr., the Treasurer of the OZ campaign, and paid for by the campaign, which is corroborated by documentation. Donovan stated that the fundraiser was planned after the organizers’ conference was already planned and scheduled and that it was not limited to organizers.

Donovan stated that flyers for the event were handed out during the conference but in non-meeting space. No witness reported receiving or observing flyers handed out at the conference. Donovan stated that donations of $250 were suggested to attendees but no one was required to attend or make a donation. Review of the list of attendees of the event, donors and amount confirm that some attendees made donations under $250 and that others made no donation. Donovan stated that at the close of the fundraiser, petition packets were made available to attendees, but no one was required to take one. The packet included petitions and instructions on how to petition, where to return completed petitions, and the rights and responsibilities for members attendees, to petition. Attendees were advised that they could only petition on their own free time and that petitions could only be signed by members and not individuals organizers were targeting for organizing. Attendees were asked to take only a packet for the region where they lived and not where they would be working on IBT campaigns.

Donovan provided a copy of the petitioning information that was included in this packet which sets forth “Important Information for Petition Circulation” including, but not limited to, instructions that “every effort should be made to ensure compliance with Election Rules,” that “No Union Resources may be used to print, copy, circulate or return petitions to the O’Brien Zuckerman Teamsters United 2026 Campaign,” and “No Union or Employer resources may be used to circulate, distribute, collect or return the completed petitions. This means you may not use Union or Employer provided e-mail, fax, mail privileges, etc. to send or receive petitions or petition related materials.”

Godfrey stated that he paid $250 to attend the event because according to Hock, “it was expected” and that the only way to avoid paying was to “make a big stink about it.” Sherrill stated that Hock told organizers they were “expected to contribute,” and said they were all “on the hook” for $2,000. Sherrill contributed $250. Brandon Broadnax stated that he was “strongly encouraged” by Hock to donate at the Chicago fundraiser event.

Townsend stated that she initially declined to contribute, experienced “push-back” by Bunch and then paid the $250. When asked what “push back” she received, she stated that she was told similar statements about it being Teamsters currency. D’Andrea Geter stated that she felt “pressured” by Bunch to donate $250 and complied. Jasmine Dae also stated that she felt “pressured” by Bunch and donated.

Robert Lopez stated that he was contacted about donating $250 and contributed but stressed that his contribution was voluntary. Kevin Sittenauer stated that he was told about the event, that it cost $250, but was voluntary and that he and other organizers present for the conference chose not to attend. He said that no one approached him afterward about donating. Nicole McKissic stated that she did not recall any issue with monies requested at the Chicago event but that she voluntarily donated when Hock asked her before the Convention.[6]

Hock confirmed that he was at the organizers conference held in Chicago and was aware of the fundraiser held by the OZ campaign. He stated that it was voluntary to pay $250 to attend the event and emphasized that if someone did not want to contribute, they did not have to. He denied contacting any organizers who chose not to pay. He said that he has been a Teamster for 25 years and “knows the Rules.”

Bunch, who was a presenter at the organizers conference, similarly stated that the event was “obviously a fundraising activity” separate and apart from the organizers conference, was “entirely voluntary” and that “no one was coerced” to attend or contribute.

Review of the OZ campaign’s materials including materials identifying attendees and contributors at the Chicago fundraising event corroborates the witnesses’ statements above about who contributed and who did not contribute. Every witness who denied attending or contributing was confirmed by these materials recorded contemporaneously in time.

Accreditation of OZ Slate Candidates

On May 29, 2025, the Election Supervisor announced the accredited-candidate petition signature requirements. On August 28, 2025, the OZ Slate submitted accreditation petitions to the OES. The OES reviewed the submitted petition signatures using a statistical sampling method and determined that the petitions contained substantially more than the minimum number of complete, valid signatures to accredit each member of the OZ Slate. Specifically, the OZ Slate provided the following:

• For the offices of General President, General Secretary-Treasurer, At-Large Vice President, and Trustee, each candidate on the OZ Slate submitted more than 127,642 signatures. To be accredited, each candidate was required to obtain a minimum of 31,344 signatures. Thus, each candidate submitted more than 96,298 signatures above the number required to be accredited.
• For the offices of Southern Region Vice President, each candidate on the OZ Slate submitted more than 14,128 signatures. To be accredited, each candidate was required to obtain a minimum of 2,998 signatures. Thus, each candidate submitted more than 11,130 signatures above the number required to be accredited.
• For the offices of Central Region Vice President, each candidate on the OZ Slate submitted more than 32,556 signatures. To be accredited, each candidate was required to obtain a minimum of 8,003 signatures. Thus, each candidate submitted 24,553 more signatures than required.
• For the offices of Eastern Region Vice President, each candidate on the OZ Slate submitted more than 36,997 signatures. To be accredited, each candidate was required to obtain a minimum of 8,255 signatures. Thus, each candidate submitted more than 28,742 signatures above the number required to be accredited.
• For the offices of Western Region Vice President, each candidate on the OZ Slate submitted more than 33,549 signatures. To be accredited, each candidate was required to obtain a minimum of 9,164 signatures. Thus, each candidate submitted more than 24,385 signatures above the number required to be accredited.
• For the office of President of Teamsters Canada & Teamsters Canada Vice President, the candidate on the OZ Slate submitted more than 9,062 signatures. To be accredited, each candidate was required to obtain a minimum of 2,926 signatures. Thus, this candidate submitted more than 6,136 signatures above the number required to be accredited.
• For the office of Teamsters Canada Vice President, each candidate on the OZ Slate submitted more than 9,062 signatures. To be accredited, each candidate was required to obtain a minimum of 2,926 signatures. Thus, each candidate submitted more than 6,136 signatures above the number required to be accredited.

On September 18, 2025, the Election Supervisor certified all the members of the OZ Slate as accredited candidates.

Review of the petitions for the Southern Region for the OZ Slate show that the following submitted petitions for the OZ Slate: Caleb Keel (106 signatures), Matt Killen (78 signatures ), Scot Godfrey (96 signatures), Mike Sherrill (128 signatures ), Robert Lopez (1,840 signatures ), Scott Bunch (62 signatures ), Eric Hernandez (218 signatures); Matthew Rupley (73 signatures); Waymon Hock (67 signatures). No petitions were submitted by Kevin Sittenauer, Cesar Calderone, Magen Townsend, Brandon Broadnax, Bianca Castro, Nicole McKissic, Jasmine Dae, and D’Andrea Geter, consistent with their statements.

This protest was filed on March 24, 2026.[7]

The IBT Convention was held on June 15-18, 2026, while this investigation was ongoing. On June 16, 2026, the duly elected and certified delegates to the Convention cast their votes for all contested offices.[8] No candidate from the Fearless Slate gained at least 5% of the ballots cast by delegates, the required 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 pursuant to the Rules. The results of the IBT Convention have not yet been certified pending the outcome and decision of outstanding protests, including this one.

APPLICABLE RULES

Campaigning on Union Time, with Union Funds or Resources is Prohibited

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…

…

No candidate or member may campaign during his/her working hours. Campaigning incidental to work is not, however, violative of this section. Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not a violation of this section.

Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(a).

All Union officers and employees, if members, retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, openly to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.  However, such campaigning must not involve the expenditure of Union funds.  Accordingly, officers and employees (and other members) of the Union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the Union.  Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, a violation of this section.  Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not a violation of this section.  An endorsement of a candidate may be made by a Union officer or employee, but solely in his/her individual capacity.  The Union or a Local Union as such or the General Executive Board or an Executive Board of a Local Union as such may not endorse or otherwise advance a candidacy, even if all members agree on the endorsement or candidacy.

Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(b).

The use of union funds, resources and personnel to assist in campaigning activities is prohibited. Specifically:

Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigning unless the Union is reimbursed at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are notified in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance.  Union officers and employees provided with Union-owned or leased cars, if otherwise afforded the right to utilize those cars for personal activities, may use the cars for campaign activities, provided no costs, or expenses incurred as a consequence of such use are paid out of Union funds or other prohibited sources.

Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(c).

Restrictions on Campaign Contributions

No labor organization, including but not limited to the International Union, Local Unions and all other subordinate Union bodies, whether or not an 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 to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate, except as permitted by subparagraphs (5) and (6) below.  No candidate may accept or use any such contribution.  These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by a labor organization and include contributions and use of the organization’s stationery, equipment, facilities, and personnel.

Rules, Art. XI, Section 1(b)(3).

No Union funds or other things of value shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual.  Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc., may not be used to assist in campaigns unless the Union is compensated at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided with equal access to such assistance and are advised in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance.  The use of the Union’s official stationery with the Union’s name, insignia, or other mark identifying the Union is prohibited, irrespective of compensation or access.  Other use of the Union’s name, insignia, or mark by Union members, in connection with the exercise of rights under these Rules, is permitted.

Rules, Art. XI, Section 1(b)(6).

            Candidates are responsible to make sure that each contribution received is permitted under the Rules. Rules, Art. XI, Section 1(b)(13) (“Candidates are strictly liable to insure that each contribution received is, permitted under these Rules.”). “Ignorance by a candidate, by a union and/or by an employer that union or employer funds or other resources were used to promote a candidacy shall not constitute a defense to an allegation of a violation of these Rules.” Rules, Art. XI, Section 1(b)(15).

Notwithstanding the above provisions, campaigning incidental to work is not, however, violative of this section and campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not a violation of this section.” Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(a); Section 12(b) (“Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, a violation of this section.  Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not a violation of this section.”).

Retaliation against any member, officer or employee or exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules is prohibited. Art. VII, Section 12(g).

ANALYSIS

I.                    Collection of Accreditation Petition Signatures Using Union Resources

1. Hock Violations

The first allegation concerns whether accreditation petition signatures for the OZ Slate were collected improperly and through a misuse of union resources in violation of the Rules. Based on the record developed in this investigation, we find that certain organizers collected signatures while on union time and using union resources at the direction of Hock, that Hock independently violated the Rules by using his supervisory authority to direct subordinate organizers to campaign, and that Scott Bunch campaigned on union time when he distributed petitions to Castro and directed her to collect signatures. Accordingly, we find Rules violations occurred.

The Rules draw a clear distinction between campaigning as a personal activity and the performance of union duties. While union officers, employees, and members retain broad rights to campaign in support of candidates, including collecting petitions, those activities may not be conducted on union time or with union funds or resources. See Rules, Article VII, Sections 12(b) and 12(c). Union personnel, facilities, equipment, and other things of value may not be used to assist a candidate unless the union is reimbursed at a fair market value and all candidates are given equal access, which did not occur here. See Rules, Article XI, Sections 1(b)(3) and 1(b)(6).

Prior Election Supervisor and Election Officer decisions have consistently held that the circulation of accreditation petitions constitutes campaign activity subject to these restrictions. See Prisco, 2010 ESD 6 (July 8, 2010) (holding that petitions may not be circulated by union personnel on union time or with union resources); Rome Aloise and Hoffa-Keegel 2011, 2010 ESD 22 (Aug. 27, 2010) (finding a Rules violation where organizers and union employees were directed to collect accreditation petition signatures while being paid by the union and while using union resources). However, since organizers often work long and irregular hours and may lack regular breaks and off duty times to exercise their personal right to campaign, organizers are afforded some flexibility about when they engage in personal campaign activity. Such decision to campaign, however, must remain voluntary and may not be directed by the union. Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (Aug. 16, 1996) (discussing Caraballo, P-653-LU272-NYC (April 3, 1996)).

Here, as set forth above, Keel and Godfrey stated that sometime between April and June 2025, they and Killen were assigned to organize the Sarasota recertification efforts paid for by the union. They stated that, while in Florida organizing, their supervisor, Hock, provided them with explicit instructions directing them to go to certain facilities to collect accreditation petition signatures for the OZ Slate and later contacted them by phone to ensure that they complied with his instructions. They expressly stated that pursuant to these instructions, they collected signatures while on union time. Additionally, another organizer, Sherrill, stated that Hock directed him to collect signatures while conducting organizing campaigns and provided him with petitions to comply with his instructions.[9]

Keel and Godfrey each separately gave materially similar and detailed accounts of these events, and Hock confirmed that Keel, Godfrey, and Killen were on his team and under his direction. Although Hock denied the allegations, weighing all of the evidence before us, we find that Hock gave these instructions to these organizers while they were on union time and in his capacity as a supervisor, in violation of the Rules. We credit the detailed and materially consistent statements of Keel, Godfrey and Sherrill. The consistency of the accounts across multiple witnesses and locations, the corroboration of the petition records showing that members of Hock’s team did in fact collect signatures as they stated, the witnesses’ genuine concern and hesitancy to participate in this investigation out of fear of retaliation, and Hock’s motive to be less than forthcoming about the allegations against him, outweigh the generalized denial offered by Hock. Hock’s denial focused primarily on the timing of the petition release and did not persuasively address the substance of the allegations. Moreover, despite Hock’s focus on April, text messages he sent on May 8, 2025 show that he was aware of and involved in facilitating the organizers’ petition efforts in May as alleged.

We further find that even to the extent Hock may have told organizers to collect signatures only on their breaks or off the clock, those instructions were not genuine. Cf. Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (Aug. 16, 1996) (finding a supervisor’s message that organizers should help with a petition drive in their “free time” coercive where the words “free” and “time off” were accompanied by laughter, and explaining that “[s]ubordinates should not have to guess whether an instruction to campaign can be safely ignored”). The text messages demonstrate that Hock knew organizers were traveling to UPS locations where no organizing campaign existed, including locations hours from their assigned campaign, and directed them to be present at shift change. He also monitored their efforts, congratulating one organizer with the message, “Well done solider.” Under the circumstances, Hock could not reasonably have believed that organizers would collect signatures at those locations using only their own time and resources. We, therefore, find that Hock improperly used union resources in support of campaign activity.

Separately, and independent of whether the signatures were collected on union time, we find that Hock violated the Rules by using his supervisory authority to direct subordinate organizers to campaign for the OZ Slate. The right of every member to participate in campaign activities necessarily includes the right to refrain from campaigning, and pressure from a supervisor that interferes with a member’s own choice to campaign or not violates that right. Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(a) and (b); Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (Aug. 16, 1996). As the Election Officer explained in Hoffa, the Rules would protect a non-coercive conversation, on non-work time, in which a supervisor tried to persuade a subordinate to campaign, but “[t]he line is crossed . . . when a supervisor purports to instruct a subordinate to engage in campaigning. There is too much potential for abuse in the supervisor/subordinate relationship to tolerate a less strict rule. Subordinates should not have to guess whether an instruction to campaign can be safely ignored.” Id. (finding a violation where a supervisor told an organizer to “get with” campaign headquarters to obtain petitions).

That is what occurred here. Hock, who confirmed that Keel, Godfrey, and Killen were on his team and under his direction, called them to a meeting, handed them petitions, told them they were required to collect signatures, directed them to specific facilities at specific shift-change times, and called them at those facilities while they were on the clock to confirm that they were collecting signatures as instructed. Keel and Godfrey stated that they would not have collected signatures if Hock had not required them to do so. Sherrill likewise stated that Hock provided him with petitions and instructed him to collect signatures. These were not invitations to volunteer; they were instructions from a supervisor to subordinates, and the organizers understood them as such. By instructing organizers to engage in campaign activity, Hock interfered with their right to decide for themselves whether to campaign and, therefore, violated the Rules.

b.      Bunch Violation

We also find that Bunch campaigned on behalf of the OZ Slate while on union time. While the two were organizing in Orlando, he handed Castro a packet of accredited candidate petitions and told her to collect signatures at her next organizing event in Houston, without any instruction that she could do so only on her own time. Distributing petitions and directing their circulation during union-paid organizing work is campaign activity on union time prohibited by the Rules, regardless of whether the person distributing them holds supervisory authority. Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(b). We credit Castro’s account. She has no apparent motive to fabricate it, and it is consistent with the accounts of other organizers who were handed petitions and directed to collect signatures while organizing. Our findings as to Bunch is limited to campaigning on union time. Because the record does not establish that Bunch was acting as Castro’s supervisor at the time, we do not find that his conduct constituted coercion or interference with her right to decide whether to campaign. See Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (Aug. 16, 1996) (finding that campaign solicitation and incorrect advice by a non-supervisory co-worker, absent coercion or evidence that despite the co-worker acted as a supervisor’s agent, did not violate the Rules). We further note that Castro declined to comply with these instructions to collect any signatures, that review of the petitions confirms she collected none, and that she was not subjected to any adverse action as a result. This violation is therefore narrow in scope.[10]

c.       The Organizers’ Violations

Finally, we address the organizers who collected signatures at Hock’s direction. By collecting accreditation petition signatures at facilities where they had no organizing purpose, during time paid for by the union and using union funded travel and rental cars, Keel, Killen, Godfrey, and Sherrill each campaigned on union time and with union resources, conduct the Rules prohibit. Rules, Art. VII, Sections 12(b) and 12(c). As in Prisco, where the Election Supervisor found that chief stewards who complied with a business agent’s directives regarding petitions “also campaigned on union time,” their conduct does not fall outside the Rules simply because it was directed by a supervisor. Prisco, 2010 ESD 6 (July 8, 2010). We are mindful, however, that these organizers acted at the express direction of their supervisor, who required them to collect signatures, told them where and when to do so, and checked that they complied. Cf. id. (noting that a grievance committee chair who had no training in the Rules made petition related calls on union time merely because the business agent directed him to do so). Keel and Godfrey stated that they would not have collected signatures had Hock not required it. Under these circumstances, while we find that their conduct violated the Rules, we decline to order any individual remedy against Keel, Killen, Godfrey, or Sherrill. The invalidation of the signatures they collected, ordered below, eliminates the benefit to the OZ Slate derived from their conduct and is consistent with the remedy in past precedent. Responsibility for directing that conduct rests with Hock and is reflected in the remedies issued against him.

 

The evidence does not, however, support a finding of widespread misuse of union resources for campaign activity beyond the violations identified above. Nor does the record establish that organizers throughout the Southern Region were uniformly directed to engage in improper campaign activity. Rather, as set forth above, witness statements reflect varied experiences and conduct. Some witnesses stated that they were never asked to collect signatures, one declined a request to do so without consequence, and others stated that they voluntarily collected signatures on non-union time and without union resources. Many of these statements are corroborated by the documentary evidence. For example, Townsend, Dae, Broadnax, Sittenauer, Calderone, and Geter stated that they were not asked to get petitions signed and/or did not get petitions signed which review of the petitions confirms. Rupley, Hernandez, and Lopez stated that they understood signatures could only be collected only on personal time and that they complied with those instructions. We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted by any contrary evidence. The Rules permit campaign activity during paid breaks, meal periods, vacation time, and other personal time. Because there is no evidence that these individuals gathered signatures while on union paid time or used union resources to do so, we find no violation of the Rules with respect to their conduct.

 

II.                 Alleged Coercion Relating to Campaign Contributions

The second charge alleges that organizers were intimidated or coerced into making campaign contributions in support of the OZ Slate in violation of the Rules. Based on the record developed during this investigation, we find that Hock improperly used his supervisory authority to interfere with subordinate organizers’ right to decide for themselves whether and how much to contribute to the OZ campaign. However, we do not find that the evidence establishes broader coercion, retaliation, or threats of retaliation affecting organizers generally.

The Rules protect both the right to contribute to a campaign and the right to refrain from doing so. Accordingly, a supervisor may advocate for candidates and solicit contributions but may not use supervisory authority to pressure subordinates to provide campaign support or contributions. See Rules, Art. VII, §§ 12(a), (b); Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (Aug. 16, 1996); Rome Aloise and Hoffa-Keegel 2011, 2010 ESD 22 (Aug. 27, 2010). In Hoffa, the Election Officer found violations where a supervisor linked campaign contributions to the employee’s standing with management and advancement opportunities, while finding no violation where comparable solicitation came from a co-worker who lacked supervisory authority. Specifically, the Election Officer found violations where a supervisor told subordinates that contributions were “expected” and would show who was “on board,” and where the same supervisor told subordinates that buying campaign raffle tickets “would look good for the higher ups” and was in their “best interest,” because those statements “directly linked the job performances” of the employees “with their willingness to contribute financially” to the campaign. Id. Those principles govern here.

a.      The OZ Campaign Fundraiser Did Not Violate the Rules

As an initial matter, to the extent the protest alleges that the May 2025 fundraising event in Chicago was improper, we do not agree and we find no violation arising from the Chicago fundraising event itself. The evidence shows that the fundraising event was clearly a campaign event separate from the organizers’ conference. The fundraiser was planned after the organizers conference was already planned and scheduled. Additionally, while we do not find that a $250 donation (or any donation) was required to attend the event, even if a $250 donation was required to attend, such a requirement alone would not be violation of the Rules. The Rules protect the making and solicitation of personal contributions. See Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (Aug. 16, 1996) (denying allegations that organizers were improperly pressured or coerced to attend or to pay the $250 cost associated with a campaign fundraising event held in conjunction with an IBT staff meeting).

b.      Hock Violated the Rules

The evidence nevertheless establishes that Hock used his position as a supervisor to interfere with subordinate organizers protected right to decide whether and how much to support the OZ campaign financially. We credit the testimony of Godfrey and Sherrill, who provided separate firsthand and materially consistent accounts that Hock repeatedly referred to campaign support as “Teamster currency,” a phrase understood by organizers to mean that campaign support generated favor within the administration and could assist advancement opportunities, told organizers they were expected to contribute, and stated that organizers were “on the hook”  for $2,000. Godfrey further recalled Hock telling organizers that “if you want to be involved in organizing, you do everything you can for the current administration” and that campaign support could help secure promotion to staff organizer positions. These statements were made by a supervisor who exercised authority over organizers’ assignments and day-to-day work. Other evidence further demonstrates that Hock actively campaigned and solicited contributions on behalf of the OZ Slate.[11] Hock denied contacting organizers who chose not to contribute but did not specifically address the statements attributed to him. We therefore credit Godfrey and Sherrill.

These statements crossed the line drawn in Hoffa. Unlike the co-worker whose aggressive solicitation was found permissible in Hoffa because she had no authority over the employees, Hock was the organizers’ supervisor. And unlike generalized expressions of campaign support or about the consequences of an election, Hock’s statements tied campaign contributions and support to the professional advancement and standing within the organization. Specifically, Hock tied participation in the campaign as “currency” by which an organizer who wanted “to be involved in organizing” could earn promotion to a staff organizer position and told organizers that they were “on the hook” for the maximum contribution amount. See Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (Aug. 16, 1996) (finding statements that contributions were “expected” and that buying campaign raffle tickets “would look good for the higher ups,” and statement linking prospective full time position to his perceived political allegiance violations because they linked job performance to campaign contributions). A supervisor need not threaten termination to violate the Rules; when a supervisor conditions advancement on campaign support, “[s]ubordinates should not have to guess” whether they can safely decline. Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (Aug. 16, 1996). Accordingly, we find that Hock interfered with the organizers’ right to decide whether and how much to contribute in violation of the Rules.[12]

Accordingly, we find that Hock violated the Rules by improperly using his supervisory authority to interfere with subordinate organizers’ protected right to decide whether and how much to make campaign contributions.

a.      No Broader Violations

We do not, however, find that the evidence establishes broader coercion, retaliation, or threats of retaliation. Unlike in Hoffa, the record contains no credited evidence that organizers were threatened with termination, discipline, reassignment, loss of work opportunities, or other adverse consequences if they declined to contribute. Nor does the record establish that any organizer actually suffered such consequences after refusing to contribute. Our finding as to Hock is therefore limited to his improper use of supervisory authority to interfere with subordinate organizers’ protected rights, not retaliation or explicit threats of adverse employment action.

To the contrary, several witnesses described declining contribution requests or campaign participation without consequence. Rupley declined Hock’s request that he contribute $2,000 and instead made a smaller contribution that he characterized as voluntary. Sittenauer chose not to attend the Chicago fundraiser and was not subsequently pressured to contribute or subject to adverse action as a result. Lopez, Hernandez, Calderone, and others likewise characterized their contributions as voluntary. The documentary evidence further confirms that not all attendees at the fundraiser contributed and that those who did contributed varying amounts.

We do not question the sincerity of witnesses who testified that they felt pressure to contribute or believed adverse consequences could result from declining to support the campaign. However, subjective perceptions alone do not establish a Rules violation. See Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (Aug. 16, 1996). The evidence must demonstrate either the improper use of supervisory authority or actual or threatened adverse consequences linked to campaign activity. While we find that Hock’s conduct improperly used supervisory authority to interfere with organizers’ protected right to decide whether and how much to contribute,  the record does not establish the broader threats, retaliation, or employment related coercion alleged by the protest.

Accordingly, we grant this aspect of the protest in part with respect to Hock’s improper use of supervisory authority to interfere with organizers’ protected right to decide whether and how much to contribute and otherwise deny the contribution related allegations.

III.              Receipt of Improper Contributions by the OZ Slate

The Rules prohibit candidates from accepting union contributions and impose strict liability for prohibited campaign assistance. See Rules, Article XI, Sections 1(b)(13) and 1(b)(15). As the Election Supervisor has explained, a campaign that benefits from accreditation petition signatures obtained through union resources cannot avoid responsibility by claiming ignorance of the conduct. Prisco, 2010 ESD 6 (July 8, 2010).

The signature collection activities described above were undertaken for the purpose of obtaining accreditation petition signatures for candidates on the OZ Slate. The petitions collected by Keel, Killen, Godfrey, and Sherrill were ultimately submitted in support of accreditation for OZ Slate candidates. Thus, the beneficiaries of the improperly obtained signatures were the candidates whose accreditation petitions included those signatures.

We have no evidence that the OZ Slate was aware of these Rules violations. To the contrary, the evidence shows that the OZ Slate took steps to remind members of their obligations to comply with the Rules including, instructing attendees of the Chicago fundraiser not to petition on union time and provided written instructions stating the same. These instructions were provided at the fundraiser on May 20, 2025, the same month that the accreditation petition passing began. Notwithstanding, whether the campaign or its candidates knew about or directed the activity is not dispositive. Under the Rules, the question is whether union resources were used to assist a candidacy and whether the candidate accepted the benefit of that assistance. The Election Supervisor therefore finds that the OZ Slate and its accredited candidates received and benefited from prohibited union contributions in violation of the Rules. See Rules, Art. XI, Section 1(b).

IV.               No Affect on the Outcome of the Election

The proven violations here are limited to the identifiable individuals and discrete conduct discussed above. We do not find that the violations established here, were sufficiently widespread or significant to affect the outcome of the Election. Those violations consist of: 1) Hock’s directing organizers to collect accreditation petition signatures on union time and with union resources; (2) Keel, Godfrey, Killen and Sherrill collecting accreditation petition signatures on union time and with union resources; (3) Hock using supervisory authority to direct subordinate organizers to engage in campaign activity; (4) Bunch campaigning on union time; (5) Hock’s improper use of supervisory authority to pressure subordinate organizers to support the OZ campaign through campaign contributions; and (6) the OZ Slate’s strict liability in receiving prohibited union contributions.

In prior matters involving petition signatures obtained in violation of the Rules, the remedy has been to invalidate improperly obtained signatures to eliminate any benefit derived from the misconduct. Applying that framework here, the result would be unchanged. Even excluding all signatures collected by Keel, Killen, Godfrey, Sherrill, Bunch, and Hock,[13] a total of 537 signatures, the OZ Slate candidates would still exceed the accreditation thresholds by substantial margins. Specifically, the International Officer candidates (General President, General Secretary-Treasurer, At-Large Vice President, and Trustee) would still have more than 95,761 signatures above the number required for accreditation. Likewise, the Southern Region Vice President candidates would still have more than 10,593 signatures above the accreditation threshold.[14] Thus, even invalidating all signatures associated with the proven violations, every OZ Slate candidate would still have been accredited and entitled to the benefits afforded accredited candidates beginning the same time that they were accredited.[15]

Nor does the record support a finding that Hock’s improper use of supervisory authority affected or reasonably could have affected the outcome of the Election. The record does not establish that organizers were required to contribute, that contributions were a condition of employment, or that any organizer who declined to contribute suffered actual adverse consequences. Those facts are not necessary to our finding that Hock violated the Rules. As discussed above, the violation arose from Hoc’s use of supervisory authority to pressure subordinate organizers by linking campaign support and contributions to advancement opportunities and standing within the orgnaizaiton. However, the record does not demonstrate that those contribution related violations altered candidate accreditation or the Election result. While Hock’s conduct improperly interfered with organizers’ protected right to decide for themselves whether and how much to contribute, the evidence does not demonstrate that those contribution-related violations had any measurable effect on the accreditation process, the Convention vote, or the outcome of the election.

The timing of events further supports this conclusion. The challenged activity occurred in the spring of 2025, the OZ Slate candidates were certified as accredited candidates on September 18, 2025, and this protest was not filed until March 24, 2026. Thus, the challenged conduct was not raised until approximately six months after accreditation had already been granted (and almost a year after the alleged conduct occurred). Moreover, the allegations underlying the protest were publicly disclosed and widely available beginning on March 23, 2026, through Hooker’s YouTube podcast featuring Keel, nearly three months before the June 2026 Convention. Accordingly, delegates had ample opportunity to consider the allegations before casting their votes.

The IBT Convention was held June 15-18, 2026, and the duly elected delegates cast their ballots for all contested offices on June 16, 2026. No candidate from the Fearless Slate obtained the percentage of delegate votes necessary to be placed on the ballot, and the OZ Slate candidates were therefore deemed elected under the Rules. While that fact is not dispositive, it further underscores the absence of any reasonable basis to conclude that the limited violations established here affected or could have affected the ultimate outcome of the election.

Accordingly, considering the limited scope of the proven violations, the overwhelming margins by which the OZ Slate candidates exceeded the accreditation requirements, the public disclosure of the allegations before the Convention, and the timing of the protest and Convention vote, we find that the violations did not affect and could not reasonably have affected the outcome of the election.

For all of these reasons, the protest is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.

REMEDY

In this matter, the Election Supervisor found that Hock violated the Rules by directing organizers to collect accreditation petition signatures for the OZ Slate on union time and with union resources, and by using his supervisory authority to interfere with those organizers’ right to decide whether to campaign and to improperly linked campaign contributions and support to organizers’ standing and advancement; that Bunch violated the Rules by campaigning on union time; that Keel, Killen, Godfrey, and Sherrill campaigned on union time at Hock’s direction; and that the OZ Slate violated the Rules by receiving and benefiting from prohibited union contributions. When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he
may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Rules, Art. XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.

Accordingly, the following remedies are issued:

1. All signatures collected by Keel, Killen, Godfrey, Sherrill, Hock and Bunch are invalidated.[16]
2. The OZ Slate shall arrange for the IBT to distribute, within five (5) days of the issuance of this decision, the notice attached to this decision to all organizers, coordinators and supervisors in the Organizing Department, to provide notice of their rights and responsibilities under the Rules with respect to campaign activity, including the right to support, oppose, or refrain from supporting any candidate or slate; the right to make or decline campaign contributions; and the prohibition against supervisors directing, pressuring, or otherwise using their authority to influence such decisions. The OZ Slate shall reimburse the IBT for any costs associated with such distribution.
3. Within three (3) days of completing the distribution ordered in No. 2 above, the IBT shall submit an affidavit to the Election Supervisor demonstrating compliance.
4. Hock shall cease and desist from: (a) directing or instructing union employees, organizers, or other members to engage in campaign activity while on union-paid time or using union resources; (b) using supervisory authority to direct, require, or pressure subordinate employees or organizers to engage in campaign activity; and (c) using supervisory authority to pressure subordinate employees or organizers to make campaign contributions or otherwise support any candidate or slate.
5. Bunch shall cease and desist from engaging in campaign activity on union-paid time and from distributing, circulating, or directing the circulation of campaign materials while performing union duties or while using union resources.
6. Hock is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $500 for directing campaign activity on union time, improperly using his supervisory authority to direct subordinate organizers to campaign, and improperly using his supervisory authority to pressure subordinate organizers to make campaign contributions in violation of the Rules.
7. The OZ Slate received and benefited from prohibited union contributions arising from the collection of accreditation petition signatures by Caleb Keel, Matt Killen, Scot Godfrey, and Mike Sherrill while on union time and using union resources, and from Waymon Hock’s use of his supervisory authority to direct those organizers to engage in that campaign activity. To disgorge the benefit of those prohibited union contributions and deter future violations of the Rules, the OZ Slate shall pay $4,000 to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters within five (5) days of this decision. Within three (3) days thereafter, the OZ Slate shall submit an affidavit to the Election Supervisor demonstrating compliance.

We further remind all members that retaliation for exercising rights protected by the Rules, including but not limited to, participation in the protest process, is strictly prohibited. The Election Supervisor will not tolerate retaliation against any member, officer, employee, or organizer for exercising rights protected by the Rules, refusing to engage in campaign activity, declining to make a campaign contribution, filing a protest, providing information during an investigation, or otherwise participating in the election process protected by the Rules.

 

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.

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 127

 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

 

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@gmail.com

 

John Palmer

Jpalmer8734@gmail.com

 

James L. Donovan Jr.

Jdonovan.ne@gmail.com

 

Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,

ed@hsglawgroup.com

 

Scott Bunch

Bunch60@gmail.com

 

Waymon Hock

whockiii@gmail.com

 

David Suetholz

DSuetholz@teamster.org

 

Will Bloom

wbloom@dsgchicago.com

 

Ken Paff

ken@tdu.org

 

Thomas Kokalas

thomas.kokalas@bracewell.com

 

Hon. Timothy S. Hillman

thillman@ibtvote.org

 

Paul Dever

pdever@ibtvote.org

 

Dolores Hall

dhall@ibtvote.org

hall1000@cox.net

 

Felicia Hardesty

fhardesty@ibtvote.org

msyfelicia@aol.com

fhardesty09@yahoo.com

 

Dennis Sarsany

dsarsany@ibtvote.org

deesarincr1945@gmail.com

 

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR TO ALL ORGANIZERS, COORDINATORS, AND SUPERVISORS IN THE ORGANIZING DEPARTMENT

The Election Supervisor has found that the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election were violated. Following an investigation, the Election Supervisor found that:

• Waymon Hock directed organizers to collect accreditation petition signatures for the O'Brien-Zuckerman 2026 Teamsters United Slate (“OZ Slate”) on union time and using union resources.
• Waymon Hock improperly used his supervisory authority to direct subordinate organizers to engage in campaign activity.
• Waymon Hock improperly used his supervisory authority to interfere with subordinate organizers’ right to decide whether and how much to contribute to a campaign by linking campaign support and campaign contributions to employment related opportunities and considerations.
• Scott Bunch engaged in campaign activity on union time by distributing accreditation petition materials and directing that petition signatures be collected while performing union duties.
• Certain accreditation petition signatures were collected on union time and with union resources in violation of the Rules.
• The OZ Slate received and benefited from prohibited union contributions arising from the improper use of union resources.

 

To remedy the violations found, the Election Supervisor has ordered the following: (1) All accreditation petition signatures collected by Caleb Keel, Matt Killen, Scot Godfrey, Mike Sherrill, Waymon Hock, and Scott Bunch are invalidated; (2) Waymon Hock shall cease and desist from (a) directing or instructing union employees, organizers, or members to engage in campaign activity while on union time or using union resources; (b) using supervisory authority to direct or require subordinate employees or organizers to engage in campaign activity; and (c) using supervisory authority to interfere with a subordinate employee’s or organizer’s right to decide whether to support a candidate or slate or whether and how much to contribute to a campaign; (3) Waymon Hock has been assessed a fine of $500 for violations of the Rules; (4) Scott Bunch shall cease and desist from engaging in campaign activity on union time and from distributing, circulating, or directing the circulation of campaign materials while performing union duties or while using union resources; (5) The OZ Slate has been ordered to pay $4,000 to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to disgorge the benefit of prohibited union contributions found by the Election Supervisor and facilitate the issuance of this notice.

YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE RULES

The Rules protect the right of every IBT member, officer, employee, and organizer to support or oppose any candidate or slate, to campaign or refrain from campaigning, and to make or decline to make campaign contributions. Supervisors may participate in campaign activity in their individual capacities, but they may not use their supervisory authority to direct subordinate employees or organizers to campaign, interfere with their right to decide whether to support a candidate or slate or whether and how much to contribute to a campaign, or link campaign support or campaign contributions to employment related benefits, opportunities, or considerations. The Rules also prohibit retaliation, threats of retaliation, or adverse employment action based on protected campaign activity or the exercise of rights protected by the Rules. Campaign activity may not be conducted on union time or with union resources except as permitted by the Rules. The Election Supervisor will not tolerate retaliation against any member, officer, employee, or organizer for exercising rights protected by the Rules, refusing to engage in campaign activity, declining to make a campaign contribution, filing a protest, providing information during an investigation, or otherwise participating in the election process protected by the Rules.

 

                                                                        Timothy S. Hillman, Election Supervisor