This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Yampolsky & Greenslade, 2021 ESD 88


for the



IN RE: LARRY YAMPOLSKY                  )           Protest Decision 2021 ESD 88

      and LISA GREENSLADE,                    )           Issued: March 19, 2021

                                                            )           OES Case No. P-109-031621-CA

Protestors.                                         )



Larry Yampolsky and Lisa Greenslade, members of Local Union 155, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2020-2021 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).  The protest alleged that Barrie Poirier violated the Rules by posting to social media a video of himself marking a ballot.


Election Supervisor representative Jack Sullens investigated this protest.


Findings of Fact and Analysis


            Local Union 155 will elect 2 delegates and 5 alternate delegates to the IBT convention.  A full slate is competing against 4 independent candidates for delegate and 5 for alternate delegate.  Neither of the protestors nor the respondent is a candidate in the election.


            A private Facebook page titled “Teamsters Local 155” is, according to its About page, the “non officially sanctioned group page for teamster local 155 members to contribute or share anything they would like.”  The page has 886 members and urges them to be kind and courteous and not to post religious or racist content.  On March 11, respondent Poirier posted a video 55 seconds long showing how to mark the ballot in the local union’s delegates and alternate delegates election.  The post accompanying the video read, “This takes less than a minute.  And can make a huge difference in our union.  Get involved stay involved be part of this great union!  Please support the Swannie Blue 155 United slate.  It’s this easy just watch.”  The video depicted Poirier marking the ballot for the full slate and folding and inserting it first in the security envelope and then in the ballot return envelope.  Audio commentary encouraged viewers to fill out the ballot promptly and put the envelope in the mail.


            The protest alleged that the video showing the secret ballot being marked violated the Rules for two reasons: first, it violated ballot secrecy; second, it shared internal union information with non-members who have access to the social media page.


            Article II, Section 15 of the Rules declares the following:


No person or entity shall limit or interfere with the right of any IBT member to vote, including, but not necessarily limited to, the right to independently determine how to cast his/her vote, the right to mark his/her vote in secret and the right to mail the ballot himself/herself.  No person or entity may encourage or require an IBT member to mark his/her ballot in the presence of another person or to give his/her ballot to any person or entity for marking or mailing.


Poirier’s video and Facebook post did not violate this provision.  Poirier has the right, protected by the Rules, to mark his ballot in secret and to maintain the secrecy of the ballot after he has voted it.  And when the returned ballot envelopes are opened according to procedure, his returned ballot will be mixed with others and there will be no ability to trace his—or anyone’s—ballot back to the eligible voter that cast it.  The video, however, reflects Poirier demonstrating the voting process and, in doing, voluntarily disclosing his choice of candidate.  The Rules do not require him to maintain the secrecy of his own vote or ballot, and we therefore find no Rules violation by Poirier.  We emphasize that in this case Poirier made the disclosure voluntarily:  there is no evidence of bribe, coercion, threat, or other conduct that compelled him to display his marked ballot or otherwise to reveal his electoral choice.


            For a similar reason, the Rules do not prohibit Poirier from sharing his electoral choice with any non-member who may have access to the Facebook page.


            For these reasons, we DENY this protest.


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:


Barbara Jones

Election Appeals Master


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, all within the time prescribed above.  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.


                                                                  Richard W. Mark

                                                                  Election Supervisor

cc:       Barbara Jones

            2021 ESD 88









Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters


Edward Gleason


Patrick Szymanski


Will Bloom


Tom Geoghegan


Rob Colone


Barbara Harvey


Kevin Moore


F.C. “Chris” Silvera


Fred Zuckerman


Ken Paff

Teamsters for a Democratic Union

Larry Yampolsky


Lisa Greenslade


Barrie Poirier


Teamsters Local Union 155


Jack Sullens


Jeffrey Ellison