Empower Slate, 2026 ESD 62
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: EMPOWER SLATE ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 62
) Issued: April 1, 2026
Protestor. )
)
INTRODUCTION
Evette Avery, on behalf of the Empower Slate, filed a protest against Merriman River Group, the Local 728 Executive Board, UPS and the Office of Election Supervisor (OES”) “manifest[ing] the presence of collusion, abuse of power, corruption and deception/conflict of interest.” Specifically, she alleges that two members of the Empower Slate, Demetria Shaw and Jonathan Caldwell, received “different versions of their eligibility letter” than other members of that slate, that Gary Woods, Jr. (also on the Empower Slate) was told he was ineligible which she claims is wrong, and that Matt Fitch of Merriman River Group told Woods via email that “two of [the Empower Slate’s] members would be deemed ineligible, if they were to be elected” which “would result in the Alternate Delegates from the New Vision Slate taking their place.” She claims that this conduct “infers that the OES, Merriman River Group, Local 728’s E-Board and UPS have colluded to ensure terminations occur to put members in jeopardy of not being eligible to carry out their duties.”
OES representative Felicia Hardesty investigated this protest. In addition to interviewing the protestor and Matt Fitch of Merriman River Group, she reviewed the record evidence including the February 9th Email (defined below) and the subject eligibility letters and Form 17’s.
BACKGROUND
Eligibility Letters from the OES
The Election Supervisor’s Form 17 is a Request for Eligibility Verification. As the instructions on the top of the Form 17 explain, “If you wish to have the Election Supervisor verify your eligibility to run for Local Union Delegate or Alternate Delegate, or to nominate or second another member for Delegate or Alternate Delegate, please fill out this form and submit it via mail, UPS or e-mail.” The form includes a request to check one of two boxes, to verify the member’s eligible for either “Delegate/Alternate Delegate” or “Nominator/Seconder.”
The OES sent Shaw and Caldwell a letter dated February 6, 2026 in response to their requests to verify their eligibility to run for delegate/alternate delegate in Local 728’s Delegate Election. The letter referenced Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Rules (governing the eligibility to run as a candidate) and advised that, based on OES’s review of Shaw’s and Caldwell’s dues payment records, they were eligible.[1] The OES made clear that the letter and eligibility verification set forth therein only applied to the aspect of his eligibility having to do with timely payment of dues and did not relate to any other aspect of his eligibility to run. The substance of these letters is substantially the same except.
The OES also sent a letter to Avery dated February 6, 2026, in response to her request to verify her eligibility to nominate or second the nomination of a member to run for delegate/alternate delegate in Local 728’s Delegate Election. Since the requirements for eligibility of nominating or seconding a candidate are different than the eligibility requirements to run as a candidate, this letter referenced Article II, Section 5(i) of the Rules (governing the eligibility requirements to nominate or second) and advised that based on OES’s review of Avery’s dues payment records available, she was eligible to nominate or second.
Avery states that all candidates on the Empower Slate sent in the same Form 17 with the box for “Delegate/Alternate Delegate” checked off. Review of Form 17’s submitted by the Empower Slate’s delegate and alternate delegate candidates shows that is not accurate. Avery’s Form 17 submitted was different than the other candidates. Specifically, her Form 17 checked off the box for “Nominator/Seconder” only (not “Delegate/Alternate Delegate”). The other Empower Slate candidates who submitted Form 17’s checked off the “Delegate/Alternate Delegate” box. Thus, the OES letter appropriately addressed Avery’s eligibility to nominate and second, not her eligibility as a candidate. Likewise, the OES sent the appropriate letters addressing eligibility of candidacy as requested by the other candidates on the Empower Slate who submitted one.
The Nomination Meeting & Subsequent Eligibility Communications
On February 7th, 2026, Matt Fitch, principal officer of Merriman River Group (“Merriman River”), conducted the nomination meeting for the Local 728’s delegate election (the “Delegate Election”). After the meeting concluded and the candidates on the Empower Slate left the union hall, Matt Higdon, Local 728’s President and a candidate on the New Vision Slate, opposing the Empower Slate, commented on the eligibility of two candidates on the Employer Slate to Fitch. The investigator, who attended the nomination meeting, was present during these comments. Specifically, Higdon stated that he believed two candidates on the Empower Slate may be ineligible but that he was not filing a protest challenging their eligibility for various reasons. Higdon did not identify the candidates he believed were ineligible.
On February 9th, Fitch sent an email to the Election Supervisor, the investigator and Paul Dever of the OES memorializing the discussion he had with Higdon and a conversation he had with Woods following the nomination meeting (the “February 9th Email”). In sum, Fitch stated that there was “an eligibility issue causing some confusion within Local 728 staff and candidates” that he wanted to notify the OES of. He went on to explain that at the nomination meeting, the New Vision Slate, headed by Higdon, nominated a full slate of 14 delegates and 7 alternate delegates and that the Empower Slate, headed by Avery, nominated a partial slate of 7 delegates and no alternates. Fitch wrote that following the conclusion of the meeting, Higdon stated he had reason to believe that two individual’s on the Empower Slate were not eligible but that he was not going to protest because (1) he did not wish to antagonize or embarrass fellow members; (2) the election would still be contested (meaning there would be a ballot count) even if those two individuals were ineligible; and because (3) even if those individuals won and they are in fact ineligible, the OES would disqualify them before the convention and their replacements would come from his slate of uncontested alternate delegates.
Fitch also memorialized a phone call he had with a Local 728 staff member and subsequent conversation with Woods regarding his eligibility on February 9, 2026. Fitch explained that the staff member called him after hearing from Woods. Fitch explained to the staff member that the OES determines a candidate’s eligibility. Fitch then spoke with Woods[2] and explained that he was a “duly nominated candidate” and that any eligibility determinations would be made by the OES, not by Fitch and not by the local. Avery alleges that Fitch told Woods that two of the Empower Slate’s members would be deemed ineligible if they were to be elected meaning that the alternate delegates from the New Vision Slate would replace them. This is not what Fitch stated to the investigator nor what is reflected in Fitch’s Feb. 9th Email written shortly after the conversations the email memorializes, which we find credible. Rather, Fitch makes clear in the Feb. 9th Email that any eligibility determinations are solely determined by the OES.
Fitch forwarded the February 9th Email to Woods and Woods forwarded it to Avery. Avery subsequently filed this protest. Avery believes the conversation that took place with Higdon commenting on candidates on the Empower Slate’s eligibility following the nomination meeting, the conversations about Woods’ eligibility, and the different eligibility letter from the OES are indicative of collusion on the part of the OES, Merriman River Group and Local 728’s Executive Board, to encourage UPS to terminate candidates on the Empower slate.
ANALYSIS
Avery’s allegations that the subjects of this protest engaged in “collusion, abuse of power, corruption and deception/conflict of interest” is based on speculation absent evidence to support it. See Rules, Art. XII, Section 1 (“it shall be the burden of the protestor to present evidence that a violation has occurred”); See e.g., Wojciechowski, P-433-LU102-NJE (Feb. 20, 1990) (denying protest absent evidence to show collusion).
First, there is no evidence that the OES provided eligibility letters inconsistent with its practice to members of the Empower Slate. The evidence shows that Avery submitted a Form 17 with a request to confirm her eligibility to nominate or second while Shaw and Caldwell submitted a Form 17 requesting confirmation of their eligibility to run as a candidate. The OES’s letters provided to each were, therefore, appropriate in addressing the check marked off on the respective Form 17s.
Second, we find that Higdon’s comments that two candidates on the Empower Slate nominated at the nomination meeting may not be eligible immediately following the meeting were not improper. He explained that he made these comments to Fitch in the context of inquiring about what would happen if, in fact, the candidates were found to be ineligible. The Empower Slate nominated a partial slate with no alternate delegates. It is understandable why Higdon may inquire from Fitch—the third-party administrator of the local’s delegate election—about such an outcome. Higdon also explained why he was not filing a protest challenging the eligibility of these candidates, all of which are reasonable in the circumstances. Not only is Higdon not required to file a protest challenging the eligibility of these candidates but, even if he did, it would not make a material difference since the Empower Slate does not have any alternate delegates.
Moreover, there is no evidence that Fitch engaged in collusion. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Fitch acted professionally, answering questions from Higdon, Local 728 staff, and Woods regarding the process and informed the OES. Although Fitch made clear that he was not involved in the determination of any candidate, his statements to the OES regarding Woods working in the movie industry, if anything, further support Fitch’s adamant denial of collusion. It is also telling that Fitch, himself, forwarded the February 9th Email to Woods, demonstrating his efforts to be transparent. Lastly, we note that the investigator, who was present at the nomination meeting and during the conversation between Higdon and Fitch, did not observe Fitch show any favoritism or bias towards either slate or any candidate of either slate during or after the meeting.
Finally, Avery does not make any specific allegations about Local 728’s Executive Board or UPS’s purported involvement in the allegations set forth in the protest let, alone, provide evidence to support such allegations.
Accordingly, we find that Avery has failed to meet her burden to show that Merriman River, Local 728 Executive Board, the OES, or UPS violated the Rules or the LMRDA and 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:
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
ESD 62
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Demetria Shaw
Jonathan Caldwell
Gary Woods, Jr.
Matt Higdon
Matt Fitch
Richard Hooker
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.)
Felicia Hardesty
Paul Dever
Kelly Hogan
[1] The OES made clear that the letter and eligibility verification set forth therein only applied to the aspect of his eligibility having to do with timely payment of dues and did not relate to any other aspect of his eligibility to run.
[2] Woods did not submit a Form 17 requesting the OES verify his eligibility prior to the nomination meeting.