Bentley, 2026 ESD 70
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: MICHAEL BENTLEY ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 70
) Issued: April 28, 2026
Protestor. )
)
BACKGROUND
Michael Bentley filed a pre-protest against Rick Armstrong, Brian Lewis, and the Armstrong-Gibbs slate running in Local 391’s delegate election. Specifically, Bentley alleges that a video in support of the Armstrong-Gibbs slate was posted on the Local 391 Facebook page in violation of the Rules.
Felicia Hardesty of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest including interviewing Bentley, Armstrong, and reviewing a screenshot of the Facebook post, the subject video, and screenshots of the video filed with the protest and other related materials.
BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2026, Local 391’s general membership meeting was held before the nomination meeting for Local 391’s delegate election. Supporters of the Armstrong-Gibbs slate wore black t-shirts with “Armstrong-Gibbs” in red and blue print on the back to the meeting. Brian Lewis, a Local 391 staff member and the local’s political/media coordinator recorded a 31 second video walking through the general membership meeting. The video was posted on Local 391’s official Facebook page on February 15, 2026. A post referencing the general membership meeting was also posted on that Facebook page. The post states:
Long day at Greensboro Union Hall—and worth every minute.
Membership Meeting. Nomination Meeting. Back to the Membership Meeting.
When that many members stay engaged all day, it says something. It says this Union matters.
Thank you to everyone who came out, participated, and did the work that keeps Local 391 strong.
Review of the video shows what appears to be a person walking through the general membership meeting (at a faster pace/sped up). The video moves quickly and does not “intentionally zoom in on” or focus on any particular member. Rather, it briefly scans over the hall as the videographer walks around capturing those present at the general membership meeting. In fact, majority of the individuals depicted in the video do not appear to be wearing Armstrong-Gibbs campaign t-shirts. The protestor submitted still screenshots of the video at the two times the videographer walks past individuals wearing the Armstrong-Gibbs t-shirt, but review of the full video shows that the videographer does not, at any point, focus exclusively on individuals wearing those shirts. In fact, even in the screenshots submitted by the protestor, while individuals in Armstrong-Gibbs t-shirts are visible, each image also includes images of other people not wearing those shirts.
Bentley alleges that the video constitutes improper use of union funds to campaign because Lewis “intentionally zoomed in on the Armstrong/Gibbs campaign T-shirts” in the video and then posted it on Local 391’s official Facebook page. He alleges that “Any member (3000+) of the page [could] easily pause the video and clearly see their campaign shirts.”
Armstrong states that the video was posted solely to advertise the general membership meeting. He disputes that the video was an improper use of union funds under the Rules.
ANALYSIS
The Rules restrict the improper use of union funds for campaign purposes. Article VII, Section 12(b) prohibits union officers and employees from campaigning with union funds, which includes campaigning on time paid for by the union. Article VII, Section 12(c) restricts the use of union funds to assist with campaigning. Specifically, it states:
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…
Rules, Article VII, Section 12(c) (emphasis added).
Additionally, Article XI of the Rules governs campaign contributions. “Campaign contribution” is defined as “any direct or indirect contribution of money or other thing of value where the purpose, object, or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate for Convention delegate or alternate delegate or International Officer position…” Rules, Definitions, 5.
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…
Rules, Article XI, Section 1(b)(6) (emphasis added).
Article XI, Section 1(b)(3) prohibits labor organizations from contributing, “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…” Rules, Article XI, Section 1(b)(3) (emphasis added). These prohibitions include monetary contributions made by a labor organization and contributions and use of the organization’s stationery, equipment, facilities, and personnel. Id.
The protestor’s allegation that the Facebook posting violates the Rules is based on his assertion that the posting constitutes campaigning. We do not find the Facebook post to be campaigning.[1] “Campaigning” has been defined as “advocacy for the nomination, election or defeat of a candidate.” Scott, 2001 EAD 397 (June 27, 2026) (citing Caffrey, P47 (October 19, 1995)). Here, the video caption itself merely references official union matters—the importance of the engagement of members that included participation in the membership meeting and nomination meeting. The only reference to Local 391’s delegate election is the fact that the nomination meeting was held. Notably, there is no statement of support or opposition for any candidate or slate. Further, upon careful review of the video, as discussed above, we find that Lewis did not “zoom in” or focus specifically on any particular member, as protestor alleges. Rather, the 31 second video shows a quick walk-through of the Union hall during the general membership meeting showing all individuals the videographer passed. When viewing the entire posting as a whole, we find it insufficient to be campaigning. See Scott, 2001 EAD 397 (June 27, 2026) (findings that Woods speech referencing the Hoffa slate insufficient to constitute campaigning).
Accordingly, 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:
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 70
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Michael Bentley
Rick Armstrong
Brian Lewis
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Felicia Hardesty
Emily Balzano
emily.balzano@nelsonmullins.com
Kelly Hogan
[1] Protestor does not allege that wearing the t-shirts at the membership meeting was a violation of the Rules. To the extent the protestor wishes to argue that the t-shirt violated the Rules, that argument is waived. See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 1(b).