Kerr, 2025 ESD 21
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: KERR, JACKSON ) Protest Decision 2025 ESD 21
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-034-111725
INTRODUCTION
Jackson Kerr filed this protest against Brian Aldes, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 320 alleging that Aldes overcharged candidates and/or slates to send out blast emails to the membership and limited the amount of emails permitted to be sent in violation of the Rules.
Jim Devine of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest. The investigation included interviews of Brian Aldes, Jackson Kerr and review of various materials submitted including, email communications, invoices, and the statement of work provided by ArcStone.
BACKGROUND
Aldes stated that in the past, Local 320 has hired the vendor ArcStone GBC (“ArcStone”) for various projects for Local 320 including, but not limited to, geofencing and social media. To comply with the Rules to permit candidates and/or slates a reasonable opportunity to distribute campaign literature, Aldes stated that he contacted ArcStone to assist Local 320. Review of the invoice from ArcStone dated October 27, 2025, shows that the total costs for the one time set up fee for the Mailchimp Campaign ($4,600) and 30 Hour Service Block ($5,400) is $10,000. This cost includes the cost of three blast emails for each of the slates. ArcStone provided a statement of work for the “Email Marketing Projects – Teamsters Local 320 Election Campaign” detailing the specifics of the project which includes creating and managing two separate campaign workflow for the two opposing slates associated with Local 320 (“SOW). The SOW sets forth the details of the project which includes campaign setup, email design, data management, Mailchimp execution and analytics. The SOW confirms that the first three blast emails by each slate is included in the $10,000 cost but that any slate choosing to send out a blast email in addition to the three “scoped out in the main project”, must pay ArcStone $1,000 in advance.
Local 320’s Executive Board reviewed the above referenced proposal from ArcStone and approved it. They agreed that Local 320 would pay the setup fee but, that candidates or slates should be required to contribute to the cost. The Local 320 Executive Board agreed that each of the first three email blasts included in the project scope should cost the slate $500.00 meaning that in total, if both slates sent three email blasts, the slates would be contributing 30% of the total cost to implement the project. According to Aldes, this cost is similar to the cost a candidate or slate would incur in a mailing campaign.
On October 28, 2025, Aldes emailed Kerr and Skoog informing them of Local 320’s agreement with ArcStone, the process to send out emails through the ArcStone system and the costs of the first three emails and any subsequent blast emails. The email also noted that since the delegate and Local Officer elections are being run at the same time, the three-email pricing will cover both elections. The guidelines and requirements for the slates to send out email blasts here are the same for both slates. Kerr subsequently followed this procedure and sent out two blast emails before he filed this protest complaining about the cost and limit on the number of emails allowed.[1]
Kerr acknowledged that there is a cost by the vendor charged to Local 320 to implement the email list service system, but it is his position that this cost, including the increase in cost based on the number of emails sent, is excessive and should not fall to the slates. He stated that he did not know the cost of setting up the system to send the blast emails and that he is not familiar with ArcStone. He provided documentation showing that other vendors charge less per email blasts (between $125 and $250 per blast). The documents Kerr provided did not include a cost increase after a certain number of blast emails.
ANALYSIS
Article XIII, Section 2(b) requires protests to “be filed within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived” including, but not limited to:
Protests regarding alleged improper or inequitable treatment of the candidate or his/her supporters by the Union, by any other labor organization or by an employer, including improper handling of the candidate's request for mailings by the Union, improper or inequitable denial of access to the membership or to relevant information by the Union, by any other labor organization or by an employer, and improper or inequitable aid or support, financial or otherwise, given or denied, a candidate or his/her supporters by the Union, by any other labor organization or by an employer[.]
Pursuant to Article VII, Section 7(a) of the Rules, governing the publication and distribution of candidate literature:
(1) Each candidate shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity, equal to that of any other candidate, to have his/her literature distributed by the Union, at the candidate’s expense. This means: (a) each candidate is entitled to a reasonable number of mailings, whether or not any other candidate makes such request(s); (b) when the Union authorizes distribution of campaign literature on behalf of any candidate, similar distribution under the same conditions and costs shall be made for any other candidate, if requested; and (c) the Union need not distribute any candidate's campaign literature if that candidate is not able and willing to pay for the reasonable costs of such distribution.
…
(3) The Union shall honor requests for distribution of literature by any lawful class or type of mail or postage…
(4) The Union shall honor reasonable requests by candidates for distribution of literature through electronic mail. Requests for the distribution of literature by electronic mail shall be governed by the same rules applicable to the distribution of literature by mail under this Section…The manner of distribution of candidate literature by electronic mail shall be subject to such Advisory or further guidelines as may be established by the Election Supervisor for the purposes of facilitating distribution of literature by electronic mail, protecting the confidentiality of electronic mail addresses, and protecting the privacy of electronic mail recipients.
Pursuant to Article VII, Section 7(d) of the Rules, “[i]n complying with requests to mail literature, the Union shall use the current names and addresses that are on file for all ballot-qualified members the candidate requests. Mailing labels shall be prepared through the least expensive system available to the Union.”
In support of his position, Kerr cites to Int’l Org. of Masters, Mates, & Pilots v. Brown, 498 U.S. 466, 478 (1991), holding that the only question that matters is whether the candidate’s distribution request is reasonable, Dimondstein v. APWU, 964 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 2013), holding that a union must abide by reasonable candidate requests for distribution including email, Mims v. Teamsters Local 728, 821 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1987), discussing the district court’s order requiring a union to let a candidate use his own vendor to distribute literature in order to distribute literature more cheaply than the quote by the union,[2] Teamsters United, 2016 EAM 30 (Oct. 12, 2016) and Halstead, 2016 ESD 243 (June 16, 2016). Quoting the Election Supervisor, the Appeals Master wrote, “Precedent establishes that a campaign may designate its own vendor if the local union’s vendor is not the least expensive provider and the campaign’s vendor otherwise complies with the Rules.” Teamsters United, 2016 EAM 30 (Oct. 12, 2016)[3] (citing Article VII, Section 7(d); Thornsberry, 2005 ESD 11 (September 19, 2005)). “Teamsters United did that by designating Mosaic, which provides the campaign nationwide service at a bulk rate. The local union’s obligation when receiving the request from Teamsters United for transmission of the email list to Mosaic was simply to comply, not to claim – incorrectly – that Teamsters United had designated MyDB Solutions as its vendor.” Id.
As these cases make clear—had Kerr requested to use his own, less expensive, vendor, Local 320 would have been required to allow him to do so.[4] However, that is not what occurred here. Instead, after being notified of the cost for the email blasts, Kerr proceeded to send two emails. It was only after sending those emails that he complained of the costs. At no point did Kerr request to use a specific vendor to distribute his campaign literature.
For these reasons, we DENY this protest.
APPELLATE RIGHTS
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
Kelly Hogan
kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com
[1] As of the dates of the interviews of Aldes and Kerr, both slates had sent out two email blasts and both slates were instructed that they had to pay for the first two blast emails before another email blast would be allowed. Aldes stated that he was unaware if either slate will send out a third email.
[2] Mims addresses and reverses the district court’s denial of the appellant’s request for attorneys’ fees. It does not provide an analysis of the district court’s order of injunctive relief requiring the local to provide appellant a set of mailing labels and ordering appellant to pay the local for the approximate cost of generating the mailing labels.
[3] The Appeals Master affirmed the Election Supervisor’s finding that the local violated Article VII, Section 7(d) of the Rules but reversed the Election Supervisor’s issuance of a fine.
[4] We caveat that this is the general rule but, like with most rules, there may be certain exceptions depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.