Hooker & Fearless Slate, 2026 ESD 126

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

 

IN RE: HOOKER ON BEHALF

OF FEARLESS SLATE                     )           Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 126

                                                            )

                                                            )

                                                            )           Issued: October 28, 2026

                                                            )

Protestor.                                             )           OES Case No. P-045-010926; P-026-110425 &

______________________________)           P-027-110425 (on remand)

INTRODUCTION

            Richard Hooker Jr., on behalf of the Fearless Slate 2026 (“Fearless Slate”), filed a protest against General President Sean O’Brien and the Teamsters United 2026 OZ Slate (“OZ Slate”) alleging fraud in connection with an online petition distributed by the Fearless Slate seeking equal speaking time at the TDU Convention in the fall of 2025.[1]

            Office of Election Supervisor investigators Dolores Hall and Felicia Hardesty investigated this protest. In addition to interviewing over 20 witnesses including a technology consultant, the investigation included review of related materials including, but not limited to, the petition, examples of automatic confirmation emails, data, including VPN and IP address data, the Broadstripes website, and OZ campaign vendor information.

BACKGROUND

           The Fearless Slate asserts three claims: (1) fraudulent submission of member information; (2) election interference through false charges; and (3) conduct unbecoming a member, in violation of Article II, Section 2(a) of the Rules. The OZ Slate denies any involvement in the conduct alleged.

Members of the OZ Slate were permitted to speak at the 2025 TDU Convention, but candidates on the Fearless Slate were not provided the same opportunity. On October 30, 2025, the Fearless Slate distributed a link to a public-facing petition titled “Petition to TDU Leadership.” The petition was created to demonstrate member support for allowing Hooker, candidate for General President on the Fearless Slate, equal speaking time at the TDU Convention, held November 7–9, 2025.[2] The petition was a standard public web form that could be filled out by anyone who accessed it by clicking on the link. Access was not limited to Teamsters members or TDU members. The petition form utilized a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platform called Broadstripes. The form was blank, left to be filled out manually by the user, except for one pre-checked box regarding personal cell phone usage. It contained no pre-populated email addresses or personal information. Review of the petition form shows that it included spaces for the submitter’s first and last name, cell phone number, email address, whether the submitter was a Teamster member, local union number, and TDU membership. When a form was submitted, Broadstripes automatically sent a confirmation email with a copy of the petition with the information the user filled in on the form in the petition to the email address the user entered on the form.

The public Broadstripes website explains how to configure email notifications and confirmations for public form submissions, like the petition at issue here and includes an “NLRB compliance note” that states: “For union organizing campaigns, NLRB regulations require that you provide form submitters with a copy of what they signed. Enabling this option and attaching a PDF satisfies this requirement.” See https://help.broadstripes.com/docs/admin-guides/public-forms/email-tab .

           Beginning on November 1, 2025, and concentrating heavily on November 2, 2025, petition submissions were systematically entered through this public petition form using the names and email addresses of other individuals, former and current union officers whose union email addresses were entered on the form, as well as obviously fictitious names Based on the Broadstripes submission data, the following suspicious activity was identified:

A.     11/1/2025 – Six suspicious submissions were made on the evening of November 1.

1. Three submissions in the names of purported members of Local 639 (Washington, D.C.) were made from mobile devices, each from a separate IP address: Zachary Hottle at 5:23 pm, Sean Tierney at 6:11 pm, and Josiah Fisher at 6:15 pm. Investigators conducted internet searches of these names and found numerous individuals with those names, but none in the Washington, D.C. area.
2. A submission in the obviously fictitious name “Booty Hole,” with a local number of “-1,” was made at 7:17 pm from IP address 45.84.107.198, using Firefox version 128 on Windows.
3. A submission in the obviously fictitious name “Ronald McDonald,” with a local number of “-122211,” was made at 7:26 pm from IP address 178.218.144.99, using Firefox version 140 on Windows.
4. A submission in the name of Fred Zuckerman, a candidate on the OZ Slate and current Secretary-Treasurer, was made at 7:31 pm, five minutes later. It came from the same IP address (178.218.144.99) and the same browser and operating system information as the “Ronald McDonald” submission.
5. The fictitious-name submissions were traced to Stockholm, Sweden and Milan, Italy.

B.     11/2/2025 – Four submissions with the following information were submitted within about four minutes of each other, all from the same IP address (171.25.193.37) and with the same browser and operating system information:

1. Erin Foley (Local 2) at 10:22 am
2. Keith Partin (Local 5) at 10:23 am
3. William Dudley (Local 6) at 10:24 am
4. Stephen Sullivan (Local 3) at 10:26 am

 

C.     11/2/2025 – Beginning two minutes later, 17 submissions with the following information were made within a 14-minute period, all from a single IP address (185.220.101.5) that differed from the one used in Section B, and all with the same browser and operating system information:

1. Jonathon Light (Local 8) at 10:28 am
2. Michael Curcio (Local 11) at 10:29 am
3. Jason Gateley (Local 14) at 10:30 am
4. Duane Grove (Local 17) at 10:31 am
5. David Watfield (Local 19) at 10:31 am
6. Mark Schmiehausen (Local 20) at 10:32 am
7. Steven Rossman (Local 22) at 10:33 am
8. Travis Bornstein (Local 24) at 10:34 am
9. Thomas Mari (Local 25) at 10:35 am
10. Patrick Gleason (Local 26) at 10:36 am
11. Jeffrey Vaughan (Local 29) at 10:36 am
12. Eugene Bosetti (Local 30) at 10:37 am
13. Stan Hennessy (Local 31) at 10:38 am
14. Roger Grover, Jr. (Local 35) at 10:39 am
15. Samantha Kantak (Local 38) at 10:40 am
16. Joseph Monslow (Local 41) at 10:40 am
17. Joseph Benevento (Local 42) at 10:41 am                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 D. 11/2/2025 – Two submissions with the following information were made in the two minutes immediately following the submissions in Section C. Both came from the same IP address (185.220.100.254), which differed from the IP addresses used in Sections B and C:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1. Pat Nichols (Local 50) at 10:42 am                                                                                                                                                                 2. David Dudas (Local 52) at 10:43 am                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            E.  11/2/2025 - Beginning at 10:49 am, six minutes later, 11 additional petition submissions were made between 10:49 am and 11:16 am. All 11 carried identical browser and operating system information but came from ten different IP addresses. In other words, it appears that an individual using the same browser used a virtual private network (VPN), proxy servers, or similar tools to mask his or her identity and location. The 11 submissions were as follows:                                                                                                                                                       
    1. Walter LaChapelle, III (Local 58) at 10:49 am - IP: 109.70.100.65

2.      George Belanger (Local 59) at 10:54 am - IP: 109.70.100.2

3.      Brian Ball (Local 61) at 10:55 am - IP: 185.100.85.24

4.      Randy Cammack (Local 63) at 10:56 am - IP: 107.189.12.7

5.      Felix Martinez (Local 70) at 10:57 am - IP: 109.70.100.2 (same IP address as Belanger)

6.      Willie Ford (Local 71) at 11:10 am - IP: 107.189.13.253

7.      Robert Miller, Jr. (Local 77) at 11:13 am - IP: 45.138.16.248

8.      Brian Rothman (Local 79) at 11:14 am - IP: 124.198.131.108

9.      Thomas Strickland (Local 81) at 11:14 am - IP: 185.220.101.169

10.  John Moralez (Local 87) at 11:15 am - IP: 185.220.101.107

11.  Avral Thompson (Local 89) at 11:16 am - IP: 109.70.100.3

 

            In total, 34 submissions were made on November 2 between 10:22 am and 11:16 am, using union officers’ names in ascending order of local union number. All 34 carried the same browser and operating system information, identifying the browser as Firefox version 140 running on 64-bit Windows (“Windows NT 10.0”). That is the same information recorded for the November 1 “Ronald McDonald” and Fred Zuckerman submissions.

 

None of the email addresses entered in the submissions listed above existed in the Fearless Slate’s database before the submissions were made. However, upon submission, as with all submissions, the Broadstripes system automatically sent a confirmation email to each email address entered on the forms submitted above.

 

Prior to this protest, James Donovan Jr., on behalf of Sean O’Brien, Fred Zuckerman and the OZ Slate, filed two related protests against the Fearless Slate, P-026-110425 and P-027-110425. Those protests alleged that the Fearless Slate sent campaign emails to Erin Foley, Principal Officer of Local 2, at her official union email address. Those protests were consolidated and a decision was issued in O’Brien et al., 2026 ESD 26 (Jan. 6, 2026).

Pursuant to 2026 ESD 26, the Election Supervisor found that Foley received three emails from info@be-fearless.org to her union email address:[3] (1) “Petition to TDU Leadership,” dated November 2, 2025; (2) “Podcast – Reality Check: Roadie – Siphoning Our Work,” dated November 3, 2025; and (3) “FEARLESS SLATE 2026 News and Views 110225,” dated November 4, 2025. Each contained links to sign the petition, donate, or volunteer. Foley represented that she received a partially pre-populated petition that she did not submit in the Nov. 2 email. The Fearless Slate explained that by submitting the petition form,  an email was automatically sent by Broadstripes to the email address entered with a copy of the petition including the information that the submitter had included on the form. It also created a record in the Fearless Slate database. The distribution list for the October 30 mailing contained no official union email addresses. Days later, following November 1 and 2, Foley’s email address and other official union email addresses appeared in the “personal email” field used for the November 3 mailing. The Election Supervisor did not resolve that discrepancy in 2026 ESD 26. The Broadstripes data reviewed here resolves that issue: Foley’s name and union email address were submitted through the public petition form at 10:22 am on November 2, 2025, from IP address 171.25.193.37, along with the submissions described Section B above. That submission generated the confirmation email and placed Foley’s union address in the Fearless Slate database, from which the November 3 and November 4 campaign emails were sent. Although the Fearless Slate conceded in 2026 ESD 26 that Foley’s address “may have mistakenly been included” in its database, that address did not appear on the distribution list before the November 2 submission.[4]

The Fearless Slate contends that the OZ Slate and/or its supporters submitted members’ information in order to trigger the automated confirmation emails and then file retaliatory protests against the Fearless Slate. The OZ Slate denies any involvement in or knowledge of the submissions.

            Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigators Dolores Hall and Felicia Hardesty conducted a thorough investigation of this protest. All individuals whose names and union email addresses were identified as having been submitted through the petition identified above denied completing or submitting the petition, contributing funds to or submitting any information or inquiries to, the Fearless Slate, including providing their email addresses, with one exception. One of the submissions was made in the name of Jeffrey Vaughan, a member of the Fearless Slate who had previously submitted his own petition on October 31, 2025, but denied submitting the second one on November 2, 2025. Many witnesses stated that they did not receive a confirmation email at the union email address they currently or regularly use. For example, one witness recalled receiving a confirmation email at a generic local union email address used by office staff. Others reported that the email addresses used were no longer in use. Many of the individuals whose information was used were not familiar with the Fearless Slate.

The Election Supervisor finds the individuals interviewed to be credible. Their accounts were consistent with the documentary evidence including the technical and submission data, which Broadstripes compiled by tracing the petition submissions, and none had any apparent reason to misrepresent whether he or she submitted the petition.

Technology consultant retained by the OES, James Marquis of 501 Works, reviewed the protest and related materials including, but not limited to, the Broadstripe website, and the petition form. Marquis explained that the petition was a standard electronic form with no security or validation measures, such as a CAPTCHA, an email verification step, or terms of use requiring accurate information. He stated that absent any of these security measures, anyone, whether or not an IBT member, or someone actually associated with the email address input into the form, could submit any information manually or with an automated program. He further explained that the timing of the submissions is consistent with a list or roster being fed into an automated program, and that rotating servers or VPNs to generate new IP addresses is a common technique for concealing identity. The only reliable way to trace the true origin of each submission would be through a device-specific identifier, such as a Media Access Control (MAC) address, which first requires identifying a suspect device. No such device has been identified here. He also explained that the cost of conducting such an investigation would be substantial.

            OES investigators also inquired of the OZ Slate about its knowledge of or involvement in this conduct. The OZ Slate denied any involvement or knowledge prior to this protest. OES investigators also inquired about its campaign vendors, but the investigation uncovered no evidence connecting any vendor, or any OZ Slate campaign activity, to the petition submissions.

            We also investigated how the email addresses submitted may have been obtained. All of the email addresses submitted were union email addresses and many, if not all, appear to be publicly available. Some locals publish, or have published, their officers’ email addresses and/or staff email addresses on their websites. Additionally, the OES website identifies email addresses in protest decisions and in local union election plans, which typically include at least the principal officer’s email. Investigation uncovered that the submissions were also entered in numerical order by local union number, which may be consistent with the use of a roster or directory. It appears that the use of publicly available information or roster used was outdated since several of the individuals whose names were used are no longer principal officers of their locals, and one submission was made in the name of Thomas Strickland of Local 81, which merged into Local 305 in 2024.

ANALYSIS

1. P-045        

           Article VII, Section 12(a) protects members’ broad rights to engage in campaign activity to ensure free, open, and equal campaign activity. This includes a member’s right to decide for themselves whether to support or oppose any candidate. Statements that falsely indicate a particular member or members support or have endorsed a candidate constitute a violation of the Rules because the member’s right to refrain from supporting or making an endorsement is implicated. Gegare, 2010 ESD 4 (June 24, 2010).

           The Election Supervisor finds that the names and other information of the individuals listed above were submitted without their permission or authority. The numerical order of the submissions by local union, together with their timing, volume, and the IP address data strongly suggests that the names and email addresses were submitted using a software program or similar automated means, drawing on an outdated roster or on publicly available union email addresses. Because the petition stated that its signers supported allowing Hooker to address the TDU Convention, each unauthorized submission falsely attributed to a member a position that he or she had not taken. Accordingly, the inputting of information of individuals other than oneself, without permission or authority, constituted a violation of the Rules. Because the person(s) who submitted each of these forms was not the member whose name and email address were entered, the submission cannot be treated as that member’s consent to receive communications from the Fearless Slate. A form submitted in another person’s name authorizes nothing on that person’s behalf.

The pattern of the submissions indicates coordinated, automated activity rather than individual members submitting the petition form on their own. That pattern includes the uniform browser information, the roughly one-minute intervals between submissions, the ascending order of local union numbers, drawn from an outdated roster, and the use of rotating IP addresses routed through multiple apparent locations, including locations outside the United States. Technology consultant Marquis explained that this timing is consistent with a list being fed into an automated program. He also explained that rotating servers or VPNs to generate new IP addresses is a common technique for concealing identity.

 

However, the investigation did not reveal the identity of the person or persons who took these actions. The submissions were masked through VPN or proxy services, with IP addresses traced to locations overseas, and no device, account, or individual could be connected to them. The Fearless Slate states its belief that the OZ Slate was involved. The OZ Slate unequivocally denies this and states it had no knowledge of Hooker’s allegations until the protest was filed. We have no evidence of any involvement by the OZ Slate or by any specific individual or individuals who engaged in the conduct.

 

           Nor does an assessment of motive supply a reasonable inference as to who was responsible.[5] The Fearless Slate argues that the OZ Slate had a motive to manufacture this conduct. Specifically, the Fearless Slate contends that these submissions were intentionally made to include members’ union email addresses into the petition to trigger automatic confirmation emails from the Fearless Slate’s system and prompt recipients such as Foley to file retaliatory protests against the Fearless Slate.

           We have no evidence to make that finding. Moreover, that theory requires a perpetrator to anticipate a chain of contingent events several steps removed. For example, it assumes that the perpetrator knew that automatic confirmation emails were sent to each email address submitted, that confirmation emails would automatically be sent before any review or security check by the Fearless Slate or its agent(s) could occur, that the emails would reach and be read by the named members, and that those members would file protests. Yet most of the members interviewed did not receive a confirmation email because it was sent to an email address they no longer use. Although the fact that Foley, whose current union address was used, did receive the confirmation email and two later campaign emails, and that the OZ Slate filed the protests decided in 2026 ESD 26, is consistent with the Fearless Slate’s theory, it does not identify who made the submissions. None of the other submissions generated a protest.

           Moreover, each unauthorized submission added a purported signature in support of the very request the Fearless Slate was advancing, equal speaking time for Hooker, an outcome that would not benefit the OZ Slate. Thus, a Fearless Slate supporter may have had a motive to inflate the apparent level of member support for the petition in order to press TDU leadership to grant Hooker speaking time, without foreseeing that the submissions would generate confirmation emails and protests. Finally, it is equally possible that the conduct was carried out by someone with no connection to either slate. The conduct is, therefore, susceptible to multiple plausible explanations—it could have been undertaken by a supporter of either slate, by a person acting independently of either slate, or by another unknown individual altogether. Because motive cuts in multiple directions, it does not identify the perpetrator or  permit a reasonable inference as to who was more likely to have committed, or to have benefited from, this conduct. Speculation that one campaign may have benefited is not evidence and cannot substantiate a violation of the Rules by any particular person.

           Although the evidence establishes that the submissions were unauthorized and violated the Rules, the protestor bears the burden of proving that a particular individual or entity committed the violation. The investigation did not identify the person or persons responsible, and we therefore cannot attribute the conduct to the OZ Slate, any OZ Slate candidate, or any other identifiable individual. As a result of the absence of evidence as to the identity of the person or persons responsible, the protest must be DENIED. See IBTPD95-P-1114-LU676-PNJ (denying protest alleging retaliation due to the absence of evidence as to the identity of the person or persons responsible); IBTPD95-P-1010-LU653-ENG (denying protest despite determining that the surveillance of certain individuals violated the Rules, absent evidence to attribute the surveillance to a particular person or persons). Because the Fearless Slate’s claims of election interference through false charges and conduct unbecoming a member each depend on attributing the submissions to the OZ Slate or its supporters, those claims are likewise denied.

1. 2026 ESD 26

           This decision also resolves the remand of O’Brien et al., 2026 ESD 26 (Jan. 6, 2026). That decision granted protests P‑026‑110425 and P‑027‑110425 and found that the Fearless Slate violated the Rules by sending campaign material and solicitations to official union email addresses. John Palmer appealed on behalf of the Fearless Slate. In its pre-hearing submission, the Election Supervisor advised that the allegations in P‑045 were intertwined with the earlier protests and recommended delaying the Notices of Violation until P‑045 was resolved. The Appeals Master remanded the appeal “for further investigation and for the OES to issue a final determination in ESD 26.” 2026 EAM 5. Because the two matters arise from the same petition submissions and substantially overlapping investigative record, we resolve them together. Part I of this decision addresses the allegations in P‑045. This Part II constitutes the final determination on remand in 2026 ESD 26.

           The Fearless Slate contends that 2026 ESD 26 incorrectly assumed that Foley’s email address was pre-populated in its system, submitting the public petition form was consent to receive communications at that email address, that the automated confirmation was a standard and protective, not an unsolicited communication, and that the Fearless Slate cannot be held responsible for a third party’s fraudulent submission of the petition. The Fearless Slate further argues that Foley did not unsubscribe, make a donation, or otherwise suffer harm and requests dismissal of the protests. For the reasons set forth below, that request is denied.

           Although 2026 ESD 26 treated the November 2 email as part of the conduct underlying the protests, that decision expressly declined to find that Fearless Slate improperly accessed union information or was responsible for creation of the populated petition submitted. On remand, we find that the petition submission was fraudulent and was not submitted by Foley. Accordingly, we do not attribute the November 2 automated confirmation email to any action taken by Foley. This finding does not disturb the independent Rules violations found in 2026 ESD 26 concerning the November 3 and November 4 campaign email distributions.

           The November 3 and November 4 emails stand on a different footing. The Fearless Slate’s email distribution list was within its control, and those emails were campaign distributions the Fearless Slate sent days after the addresses were entered into its database. Use of union email addresses to solicit campaign support or contributions violates Article XI, Section 1(b)(6) of the Rules. The Rules impose strict liability on a candidate or candidates who receive an improper benefit. See Rules, Article XI, Sections 1(b)(13) and 1(b)(15). That the addresses may have entered the Fearless Slate’s database through fraudulent submissions by a third party does not excuse the Fearless Slate’s later use of those addresses for its own campaign solicitations. The Fearless Slate remained responsible for ensuring that its campaign distributions complied with the Rules before sending campaign material, and the record demonstrates that official union email addresses were included in its November 3 and November 4 distributions..

           Accordingly, on remand, the findings in 2026 ESD 26  that the Fearless Slate violated the Rules by distributing campaign emails on November 3 and November 4, 2025, to official union email addresses are affirmed. To the extent 2026 ESD 26 relied on the November 2, 2025 automated confirmation email as evidence of a Rules violation, that portion of the decision is MODIFIED in light of our finding that the petition submission generating that email was fraudulent and was not submitted by Foley. As 2026 ESD 26 recognized, the degree of violation is not substantial. The remedy ordered in 2026 ESD 26 is VACATED and replaced by the remedy set forth below.[6]

REMEDY

           When the Election Supervisor determined that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate.” Rules, Article XIII, Section 4. Although the protest is denied, the Election Supervisor has found that one or more unidentified persons violated the Rules by submitting members’ names and information without their authorization, which is a serious violation. The Election Supervisor has also affirmed the violation by the Fearless Slate in 2026 ESD 26.  In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process. Because the Election has concluded, the email notice remedy ordered in 2026 ESD 26 is no longer necessary to prevent continuing campaign related harm, and the remedial purpose is better served by the notice ordered here.. Notices have previously been deemed appropriate when a violation was found but the violator was not identified.

           In Gregory, P-800-LU135-SCE (July 18, 1991), the Election Officer ordered a local union to post a notice addressing the politically motivated smashing of windows in a member’s car, although the perpetrator was unknown. In Willett, P-863-LU331-PNJ (August 16, 1996), the Election Officer ordered the International officer candidates to communicate the Election Officer’s order concerning the use of campaign stickers to deface property to members who campaign for them despite the perpetrators being unknown. In Sheibley et al., P-1010-LU653-ENG (Oct. 14, 1996), the Election Officer determined that unknown persons conducted surveillance in violation of the Rules and ordered that a notice be posted by the local in an effort to prevent further occurrences.

            Consistent with these decisions, the Election Supervisor orders the following:

 

1. The Notice to IBT Members attached to this decision shall be published in the next edition of the Teamsters magazine to inform members that the conduct discussed above is a violation of the Rules.
2. The Election Supervisor will post the attached Notice to IBT Members on the OES website within two (2) working days of the date of this decision, where it shall remain for 30 days.
3. Within five (5) business days of the date of this decision, the Fearless Slate shall delete from its Broadstripes database, and from any other list it maintains, every contact record created by the November 1 and November 2, 2025 petition submissions identified in this decision.
4. As no candidate or slate may use contributions received from members who were improperly solicited at local union email addresses, the Fearless Slate shall, within five (5) business days of the date of this decision, return any contributions received from individuals solicited at the union email addresses included in its November 3 and November 4, 2025, distributions using the procedures set forth in 2026 ESD 26. Within the same period, the Fearless Slate shall submit a declaration to the Election Supervisor affirming either that it has completed the return of such contributions or that it received none, and that it has completed the deletion of records ordered above.

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.

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 126

 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

 

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@gmail.com

 

John Palmer

Jpalmer8734@gmail.com

James L. Donovan Jr.

Jdonovan.ne@gmail.com

 

Sandy Weaver
Sandy.weaver@gmail.com

 

Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,

ed@hsglawgroup.com

 

David Suetholz

DSuetholz@teamster.org

 

Will Bloom

wbloom@dsgchicago.com

 

Ken Paff

ken@tdu.org

 

Thomas Kokalas

thomas.kokalas@bracewell.com

 

Hon. Timothy S. Hillman

thillman@ibtvote.org

 

Paul Dever

pdever@ibtvote.org

 

Dolores Hall

dhall@ibtvote.org

hall1000@cox.net

 

Felicia Hardesty

fhardesty@ibtvote.org

msyfelicia@aol.com

fhardesty09@yahoo.com

 

Deborah Schaaf

Debschaaf33@gmail.com

 

Greg Friedholm

greg@friedholmlaw.com

 

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com

 

 

NOTICE TO ALL IBT MEMBERS

The Election Supervisor has issued a consolidated protest decision and final determination on remand concerning O’Brien et al., 2026 ESD 26 (January 6, 2026). That decision, Hooker & Fearless Slate, 2026 ESD 126 (Oct. 28, 2026), resolves two related matters and the findings described below.

1. Misuse of members’ names and information. Following a protest filed on behalf of the Fearless Slate, the Election Supervisor determined that on November 1 and 2, 2025, one or more unidentified persons submitted the names and union email addresses of IBT members to an online petition posted by the Fearless Slate, without those members’ knowledge or permission. The petition asked Teamsters for a Democratic Union leadership to allow Fearless Slate candidate Richard Hooker Jr. to speak at the 2025 TDU Convention. Each unauthorized submission falsely indicated that a member supported that request in violation of the Rules. The Election Supervisor was unable to identify the person or persons responsible and has made no finding that any candidate or slate was involved.

2. Fearless Slate campaign emails to union email addresses. The Election Supervisor has found that the Fearless Slate violated the Election Rules by sending campaign solicitations to members at their official union email addresses on November 3 and November 4, 2025. Campaign support and contributions may not be solicited using union resources including union email addresses, and candidates and slates are strictly liable for any use of union resources in their campaigns. The Election Supervisor found the Fearless Slate violated the Rules by sending the November 3 and 4 emails to union email addresses but did not find a violation based on the automated confirmation email generated by the unauthorized petition submissions described above. The remedy for the Fearless Slate’s violation is set forth in the full decision.

Your rights and obligations. All IBT members have the right to decide for themselves whether to support or oppose any candidate, or to refrain from doing so, free from interference, restraint, or coercion. Submitting another member’s name, email address, or other personal information to a petition, form, or other campaign material without that member’s authorization, or otherwise falsely indicating that a member supports or opposes a candidate or campaign position, is a serious violation of the Election Rules and will not be tolerated.

The Election Supervisor ordered this Notice be issued to inform members of their rights under the Election Rules and to deter future violations. The Election Supervisor will take appropriate action, including remedial measures, against any person found to have submitted another member’s information to support a candidate or candidates without authorization or to have otherwise interfered with members’ free choice in the election or to have used union resources to campaign.

This is an official notice of the Office of the Election Supervisor. The full decision is available at www.ibtvote.org.

Timothy S. Hillman, Election Supervisor

 

 

            This is an official notice from the Election SUPERVISOR for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters