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

Warren, 2021 ESD 184


for the



IN RE: PATTY WARREN,                         )           Protest Decision 2021 ESD 184

                                                                       )           Issued: December 6, 2021

Protestor.                                           )           OES Case No. P-155-062221-FW



Patty Warren, member of Local Union 174, 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 John Scearcy, principal officer of Local Union 117 and candidate for IBT vice president on the Teamster Power slate, violated the Rules by using resources of Local Union 117 to support the Teamster Power slate.


Election Supervisor representative Chris Mrak investigated this protest.


Findings of Fact and Analysis


            The protest’s allegation is that Local Union 117 used its website and social media to promote the Teamster Power slate, not by explicitly endorsing the candidates on that slate for International office or touting the platform on which the slate competed against the O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate, but by using the slogan “Teamsters Power” in various contexts.  We note that the slate name employs the word “Teamster” in its singular form.  In contrast, the phrase Local Union 117 used incorporated the plural “Teamsters.” 


            Investigation established that Local Union 117 has used the phrase “Teamsters Power” (plural) generically over several years to promote various initiatives ranging from organizing to contract negotiating and strikes.  The local union printed signs bearing that phrase (again, plural) for use by its convention delegates who attended the in-person gathering the local union sponsored during the IBT convention.  Photos of some delegates holding signs bearing that phrase appeared on the local union’s website and social media.  Investigation did not reveal any evidence that use of the phrase “Teamsters Power” signaled or constituted a campaign reference.


            Some photos depicting convention delegates wearing shirts emblazoned with the slate name “Teamster Power” (singular) were also posted to local union media.  We presume that the delegates wearing the “Teamster Power” shirts intended them as campaign messages.  Convention rules permitted delegates to wearing partisan campaign material while attending the convention but not when exercising their rights to vote on candidate nominations for International office. 


            As noted above, a distinction exists between “Teamsters Power” and “Teamster Power.”  The distinction arises largely from context in which each phrase has been used.  We relied on this distinction in Trujillo, 2021 ESD 155 (October 11, 2021), where we declined to find that a photo posted to local union media of a person wearing a lanyard bearing the slogan “Teamsters Power” violated the Rules.  The basis for that decision was that insufficient evidence existed to establish that the slogan referred to the slate of candidates, which used the singular “Teamster” in the slate name. 


            We deferred this protest for post-election consideration under Article XIII, Section 2(f)(2) of the Rules.  Pursuant to Section 3 of Article XIII, post-election protests “shall only be considered and remedied if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election.”[1] 


            No basis exists for deciding this protest.  All candidates on the Teamster Power slate lost their elections, including Scearcy.  Accordingly, we will not consider or remedy the complained of conduct where no proof exists that it may have affected the outcome of the election.


            For this reason, we dismiss this protest as MOOT.


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 184









Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters


Edward Gleason


Patrick Szymanski


Will Bloom


Tom Geoghegan


Rob Colone


Barbara Harvey


Fred Zuckerman


Ken Paff

Teamsters for a Democratic Union


Scott Jenkins

Patty Warren


Teamsters Local Union 117

John Scearcy


Christine Mrak


Deborah Schaaf


Jeffrey Ellison

[1] Protests alleging improper threats, coercion, intimidation, violence, and retaliation are considered regardless of whether the conduct affected the outcome of the election.