2026 EAM 26 (re: 2026 ESD 122 & 123)

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

2026 EAM 26
ISSUED: November 2, 2026
APPEAL OF ELECTION SUPERVISOR PROTESTS 2026 ESD 122 AND 123
OES CASE No. P-159-061826; P-158-061626

Protest Decisions 2026 ESD 122 and 123 (“ESD 122” and “ESD 123”) were issued on September 9, 2026 (OES Case Nos. P-159-061826 and P-158-061626) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).  ESD 123 addresses a post-election protest filed by Marianna Battiste, a candidate on the Fearless Slate, alleging that the O’Brien-Zuckerman Slate (“OZ Slate”) and its supporters violated the Rules for the 2025–2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”) by engaging in intimidation, voter interference and distributing fictitious ballots at the IBT Convention.  ESD 122 addresses a similar post-election protest filed by Ms. Battiste alleging that security personnel for the OZ Slate and others improperly targeted and intimidated Fearless Slate candidates at the Convention.   On September 9, 2026, the OES denied both protests.

Ms. Battiste appealed both decisions, and the appeals were consolidated without objection because they involved overlapping facts and claims.  By Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for September 17, 2026. Before the hearing, the OES filed a submission supporting its position. Edward Gleason, counsel for the OZ Slate, also filed a submission, together with the OES’s June 15, 2026 memorandum on floor nomination procedures for the Convention. The hearing was held by videoconference on September 17, 2026.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Kelly Hogan, Deborah Schaaf, and Joe Childers on behalf of the OES; Edward Gleason and James Donovan on behalf of the OZ Slate; and Marianna Battiste, Michael Sparks, Evette Avery, Rob Nixon, and Aubry Stallworth on behalf of the Fearless Slate.  Steve Zeltzer, who was neither an interested party nor a Teamster member, was not permitted to attend.

Background

These protests concern events at the June 2026 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Convention at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. Marianna Battiste, a delegate candidate on the Fearless Slate, alleged misconduct during the nomination proceedings, as well as improper campaigning and interference with delegate voting. 

In ESD 122, Ms. Battiste alleged that OZ Slate supporters and security personnel surrounded and obstructed Fearless Slate candidates Richard Hooker, Jr., and John Palmer as they awaited entry into the Convention Hall to accept their nominations. She asserted that this conduct created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation and was intended both to suppress support for the Fearless Slate candidates and to retaliate against members who did not support the OZ Slate.

In ESD 123, Ms. Battiste alleged that, during delegate voting, OZ Slate candidates and supporters distributed deceptive, pre-filled sample ballots and intimidated delegates traveling along the escalator route to the Palace Ballroom to vote. She asserted that this conduct interfered with their ability to vote at the Convention.

Determination

Under Article XIII, Section 3(b), a post-election protest may be considered and remedied only if the alleged violation may have affected the election’s outcome. This standard requires a plausible causal connection between an established violation and the election result.  The rule provides an exception, however, for timely allegations of threats, coercion, intimidation, violence, or retaliation, which are considered regardless of their effect on the outcome.

Article VII, Section 12(g), further provides that “retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.”  To establish a retaliation claim, the evidence must demonstrate that “(1) the alleged victim engaged in activity protected under the Rules; (2) the charged party took adverse action against the alleged victim; and (3) the protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action.”  See Bundrandt, 2005 ESD 19 at 10 (October 23, 2005), aff’d, 05 EAM 4 (November 15, 2003) (quoting Cooper, 2005 ESD 8 (September 2, 2005)).[1] 

The Rules also protect the right of members and officers to participate freely in campaign activities without intimidation or threats of retaliation. See Rules, Art. VII.  Loud, rude, aggressive, and obnoxious behavior, without more, remains protected. Zuckerman, 2015 ESD 7 (July 15, 2015). To establish intimidation, the evidence must show physically or verbally aggressive behavior that threatens actual harm.

John Palmer and Richard Hooker were the Fearless Slate candidates slated for nomination at the Convention. Although the protest in ESD 122 alleged that OZ Slate personnel intimidated and threatened them, Ms. Battiste acknowledged during the investigation that no threats, physical contact, or isolation occurred before the nomination process.  Moreover, Palmer did not recall the alleged incident, Hooker expressly denied that they had been surrounded or intimidated, and OES personnel reported observing no intimidation.  Accordingly, the OES appropriately determined that no violation of the Rules had occurred.

The retaliation claim in ESD 122 fails for the same evidentiary reasons. Even assuming that the candidates’ campaign activities satisfied the protected-activity element, the evidence did not establish the adverse action alleged in the protest. Ms. Battiste acknowledged that no threats, physical contact, or isolation occurred, and Hooker expressly denied that the candidates had been surrounded or intimidated. Those findings do not establish adverse action motivated by protected activity. Ms. Battiste’s assertion that the conduct was intended to suppress support for the Fearless Slate or punish members who did not support the OZ Slate cannot, without proof of the alleged adverse action, establish retaliation under Article VII, Section 12(g).

            Having considered all the facts and Ms. Battiste’s arguments at the hearing, I reach the same conclusion regarding the conduct at the escalator alleged in ESD 123. First, distributing the sample ballot at the escalator did not violate the Rules.  The ballot prominently displayed the words “SAMPLE BALLOT” on each page, and election precedent recognizes sample ballots as permissible campaign literature. See Opalesky, P-464-LU623-PNJ (March 7, 1996) (citing Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (Feb. 21, 1996); Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (Feb. 21, 1991); Hughes, P-499-LU710-CHI (Feb. 21, 1991); Hammontree, P-530-LU667-SOU (Feb. 25, 1991)).

The OES investigation also found that, while delegate voting was underway, approximately six OZ Slate supporters distributing literature briefly impeded pedestrian traffic. After a delegate complained, security personnel intervened, and the group immediately cleared a path.  The incident was resolved less than five minutes after being reported, and subsequent monitoring revealed no further obstructions.  Voting proceeded by individual secret electronic ballot in a restricted, supervised area.  No evidence showed that the conduct at the escalator prevented delegates from voting or otherwise influenced the vote. These findings do not establish intimidation under the standard set out above.  The brief obstruction, followed by the group’s immediate compliance with security personnel’s intervention, does not, without more, establish physically or verbally aggressive behavior threatening actual harm. Nor do these findings establish retaliation. Even assuming that the delegates engaged in protected activity and that the obstruction constituted adverse action, the evidence described above does not establish that protected activity was a motivating factor in that obstruction. 

For all of these reasons, the appeals are DENIED.

SO ORDERED:

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED: November 2, 2026

DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):

Jared Frankian

JJfrankian@yahoo.com

Justin Scott

justin@teamster431.org

Gilbert Prieto

gilbert@teamster431.org

Robert Bonsall

rbonsall@beesontayer.com

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@gmail.com

John Palmer

jpalmer8734@gmail.com

Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,

ed@hsglawgroup.com

James L. Donovan Jr.

jdonovan.ne@gmail.com

David Suetholz

DSuetholz@teamster.org

Will Bloom

wbloom@dsgchicago.com

Ken Paff

ken@tdu.org

Timothy S. Hillman

thillman@ibtvote.org

Paul Dever

pdever@ibtvote.org

Deborah Schaaf

Deschaaf33@gmail.com

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com