Protest Decisions

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

2026 EAM 20
ISSUED: June 12, 2026
APPEALS OF ELECTION SUPERVISOR PROTESTS 2026 ESD 74 & 75
OES CASE Nos. P-058-012626;
P-071-020826; P-084-022026

Protest Decision 2026 ESD 74 (“ESD 74”) was issued on May 5, 2026 (OES Case Nos. P-058-012626 and P-071-020826) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).  ESD 74 addresses protests filed by Rosemary Stedronsky, on behalf of the Power for All Slate, and Jose Francisco Negrete, on behalf of the 952 Dump O’Brien Slate.  The protestors alleged that UniLect Corporation (“UniLect”), the third party administrator of the local unions’ delegate elections, misrepresented its legal status, and that this alleged misrepresentation resulted in a lack of confidence among union members as to UniLect’s ability to fairly administer elections.

Protest Decision 2026 ESD 75 (“ESD 75”) was also issued by the OES on May 5, 2026 (OES Case No. P-084-022026).  ESD 75 addresses a protest filed by Norman Sauceda, on behalf of the Teamsters 542 Members for Members Fearless, which raised allegations similar to those raised by the protestors in ESD 74.

The Election Supervisor denied the protests in both ESD 74 and ESD 75, finding the protests were not timely filed, and even if timely, the protests failed on the merits.  

On May 7, 2026, Ms. Stedronsky appealed the decision in ESD 74 and Mr. Sauceda appealed the decision in ESD 75. These appeals have been consolidated based upon a request from the protestors and in light of the substantially overlapping factual and legal issues.

A hearing by video conference was held on May 14, 2026.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Kelly Hogan and Debra Schaaf on behalf of the OES; Rosemary Stedronsky; Norman Sauceda; Jaime Vasquez on behalf of Local 542; James Donovan Jr., Treasurer of the O’Brien-Zuckerman Teamsters United 2026 Slate; Randy Cammack, Ron Seamans, and Sam Stewart on behalf of Local 63: Raquel Ortega, counsel for Local 63; and interested parties Marianne Battiste and Jennifer Cruz. 

For the reasons set forth below, the appeals are DENIED.

Background

UniLect is an independent third party provider of election services that has been conducting elections for various local and national unions since 2008, including officer elections for the IBT since 2010, and delegate elections for the IBT since 2011. 

Pursuant to Local 63 and Local 952’s respective local union election plans (“LUEP”), both locals retained UniLect to administer their delegate elections following their nomination meetings.  Pursuant to Local 542’s LUEP, the local retained UniLect to administer its nomination meeting and delegate election.  Testimony was presented to the Election Supervisor by representatives of Local 63, Local 952, and Local 542 that UniLect had always conducted fair and open elections during UniLect’s time administering elections on behalf of each of those local unions.

Based on the Election Supervisor’s investigation, and according to the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) and the California Office of the Secretary of State, UniLect’s license to conduct business in the state of California was suspended on April 2, 2024, and reinstated on January 9, 2026.  The Election Supervisor concluded that the suspension was due to UniLect’s late annual FTB filings, and that UniLect was unaware its license had been suspended until December 10, 2025.  Upon learning of the suspension, UniLect took prompt steps to resolve the issue and restore its license.  

As UniLect’s license was reinstated on January 9, 2026, UniLect held an active California license throughout the election process of each local union: Local 63’s nomination meeting was held on January 24, 2026, ballots for Local 63’s delegate election were mailed on February 24, 2026, and the ballot count occurred on March 26, 2026;  Local 952’s nomination meeting was held on February 6, 2026, ballots were mailed on March 13, 2026, and the ballot count occurred on April 6, 2026;  and Local 542’s nomination meeting was held on February 17, 2026, ballots were mailed on March 19, 2026, and the ballot count occurred on April 14, 2026. 

The OES denied the protests as untimely based on its determination the protestors had actual or constructive knowledge of UniLect’s suspended license weeks or months before filing their protests.

The Election Supervisor also denied the protests on the merits, finding (1) UniLect did not administer the delegate elections without a license because its license had been restored before the election process began, (2) the Rules for the 2025–2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”) did not require that UniLect have a business license to administer a delegate election, and (3) the absence of a license alone was insufficient to demonstrate that UniLect’s administration of the delegate elections was unfair or may have affected the outcomes.

Determination

The Election Supervisor correctly denied the protests on the merits.[1]  The central question in each appeal is whether the suspension of UniLect’s FTB license between April 2, 2024 and January 9, 2026 constitutes a violation of the Rules that may have affected the outcomes of the delegate elections at issue.  See Article XIII, Section 1, Article XIII, Section 2(f)(2); Article XIII, Section 3(b).  I agree with the Election Supervisor that the protestors have not demonstrated the temporary suspension of UniLect’s license violates the Rules nor have they demonstrated that the license suspension may have affected the election outcomes.

First, the challenged elections were administered while UniLect held an active license to do business in the state of California.  The record reflects that UniLect’s license was restored on January 9, 2026 – approximately two weeks before Local 63’s nomination meeting, nearly four weeks before Local 952’s nomination meeting, and over five weeks before Local 542’s nomination meeting.  Any concerns UniLect’s temporary license suspension might have theoretically raised were obviated when UniLect’s license had been restored to active status.

Second, the Election Supervisor correctly determined that nothing in the Rules requires a third party election agency to hold a state business license in order to administer an election.  

Third, as the Election Supervisor properly held, UniLect’s lack of an active California business license, for any period of time, does not in itself establish that UniLect’s administration of the delegate elections were unfair or affected the outcomes. To the contrary, there is ample evidence in the record from which the OES could conclude that UniLect’s administration resulted in open, transparent, and fair elections.

For the reasons stated above, the Appeals are DENIED.

SO ORDERED

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED: June 12, 2026

DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):

Rosemary Stedronsky

maiden2thedeath@yahoo.com

Jose Francisco Negrete

jfnegrete952@gmail.com

Norman Sauceda

pureflow7@gmail.com

Randy Cammack

randytboss@aol.com

Eric Jimenez

ejimenez@teamsters952.org

Jaime Vasquez
jvasquez@teamsters542.org

Catherine Burkhart

cburkhart@unilect.com

Edward M. Gleason, Jr.

ed@hsglawgroup.com

James Donovan Jr.

jdonovan.ne@gmail.com

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@gmail.com

David Suetholz, General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

dsuetholz@teamster.org

Will Bloom
wbloom@dsgchicago.com

Ken Paff

ken@tdu.org

Hon. Timothy S. Hillman
thillman@ibtvote.org

Paul Dever

pdever@ibtvote.org

Deborah Schaaf

debschaaf33@gmail.com

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com