Protest Decisions

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: MOLINAR, JESSE                )                       Protest Decision 2026 ESD 103

            Protestor.                                 )                       Issued: June 2, 2026

                                                            )

______________________________)                       OES Case No. P-103-030326 and

                                                                                    P-107-030326

Jesse Molinar filed two protests on behalf of the Members First Slate alleging the improper use of union funds or resources to campaign in violation of the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”). He filed a protest against Alfonso Brito, Local 577’s Principal Officer at the time the protest was filed and candidate for delegate on the Teamster Local 577 Slate, and Brent Taylor, Secretary Treasurer of joint council 80, head of Local 745, and candidate for Southern Regional Vice President, alleging that they and John Deleon, also a candidate on the Teamster Local 577 Slate, engaged in improper campaign activity in support of the Teamster Local 577 Slate on February 27^th (“P-103”). He filed a second protest against Brito and the Teamsters Local 577 Slate for improperly campaigning at Tyson on March 4, 2026. (“P-107”). We consolidated these protests for decision.

BACKGROUND

Local 577 is entitled to 4 delegates and 4 alternate delegates to the IBT International Convention. Local 577’s delegate election occurred on March 17, 2026. 152 valid ballots were counted, 13 ballots were void, the 5 challenged ballots were resolved. The election results are as follows:[1]

As set forth above, the margin in both the delegate election and the alternate delegate election were only a few votes. Specifically, only four votes separated the winning delegate with the least votes and the losing delegate with the most votes. That same margin for alternate delegates was three votes.

APPLICABLE RULES

Article VII, Section 12(a), (b) and (c) prohibits campaigning on union time or with union resources. Campaigning on employer premises is only permitted if a preexisting right exists. See Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(d). As discussed in more detail below, no such pre-existing right exists at the Tyson facility at issue here.

FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

Alleged Improper Campaigning on February 27, 2026 (P-103)

a.      Taylor and Deleon

Taylor, Deleon and Brito campaigned at Tyson the afternoon of February 27^th handing out campaign literature in support of the Teamster 577 Slate. Protestor alleges that Taylor “does not live in the area and arguably used union resources to travel to the worksite locations and print campaign literature.” (emphasis added). As for DeLeon, he states, “I believe that he used union resources to travel.” He did not provide any evidence to support these assumptions or beliefs. See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 1 (“t shall be the burden of the protestor to present evidence that a violation has occurred.”).

Taylor stated that he took a vacation day on February 27, 2026 and flew to Amarillo from Dallas on personal airline points. Taylor’s time records support his statements and demonstrate that he did, in fact, take a vacation day on February 27^th.

Deleon stated that he took an “option” day from UPS and traveled from his home in Lubbock, TX to Amarillo in his personal vehicle. Deleon is a trustee Local 577 and does not have access to Union vehicles.

Marylisa Dominguez, Local 577’s office manager, stated that all of the printers at the union hall are “old” and cannot produce colored, professional grade, pamphlets or leaflets. She also said that the printers are located in the small office, and she has seen no one printing campaign materials on any of the printers. The campaign literature distributed was printed in color and is consistent with other campaign materials the OZ Slate has provided other campaigns it supported. In fact, the protestor acknowledged that he did not have any evidence including any witnesses to show that a Local 577 printer to print the campaign materials distributed. Rather, he claims that “that’s what they did in the local election.”

The protestor provided no evidence to support his claims that Taylor or DeLeon campaigned on union time or with union resources or funds and the evidence demonstrates the contrary. See Teamsters United, 2017 ESD 384 (Feb. 15, 2017) (denying protest for lack of sufficient evidence to establish improper campaigning).

Accordingly, we DENY the protest to the extent it alleges that Taylor or Deleon campaigned in violation of the Rules.

b.      Brito

Brito stated that he took a half day to campaign at Tyson with Taylor and Deleon the afternoon of February 27^th. Review of his time sheets confirm that he took time off that afternoon. Accordingly, we DENY the aspect of P-103 that alleges Brito improperly campaigned on union time that afternoon.

Brito has been an IBT member since 1983. He became Principal Officer of Local 577 in January 1, 2023. He has participated in the delegate elections multiple times. He is familiar with the Rules including the prohibition on campaigning during union time. His decision to take leave to campaign on the afternoon of February 27^th reflects that understanding.

Notwithstanding, during the investigation, Brito acknowledged that he campaigned the morning of 27, 2026[2] at UPS and did not take time off. His time records confirm that he was on union time the morning of February 27^th. Brito did not provide any explanation or reasoning for why he did not take leave while campaigning at UPS, despite having done so later that same day for campaigning at Tyson. He estimated that he campaigned for approximately two hours during a shift change and interacted with, or attempted to interact with, approximately 20–30 individuals. During her interactions with Brito, the investigator found him to be dismissive of the Rules and lack any accountability.  Brito estimated that he was at UPS for about two hours during shift change that morning and saw, interacted with, or tried to interact with 20-30 people.[3]

Accordingly, we find that Brito campaigned at UPS the morning of February 27^th on union time in violation of the Rules. We find no evidence that others on his slate were aware of his conduct. We further find that Brito acted, at a minimum, with a willful disregard for the Rules and the integrity of the election process.

This protest is being considered in a post-election context. In such circumstances, the Election Supervisor evaluates whether the violation may have affected the outcome of the election. A violation of the Rules alone is not grounds for setting aside an election unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome may have been affected. Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, Local 6, 391 U.S. 492, 507 (1968). Although a violation may give rise to a presumption of affect, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence supporting a conclusion that the violation did not affect the result. Id.; Dole v. Mailhandlers, Local 317, 711 F. Supp. 577, 581 (M.D. Ala. 1989). In assessing potential impact, the Election Supervisor may consider both the numerical scope of the violation and whether there is a connection between the conduct and the election outcome. See Platt, Post-1 (March 14, 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 96 EAM 144 (March 29, 1996). In certain circumstances, where the benefit conferred is substantial and the margin of victory is narrow, a definitive causal link is not required. Ford, 95 EAM 46 (December 20, 1995).

Here, three delegates from the Teamsters Local 577 Slate (including Brito) and one delegate from the Members First Slate were elected, along with three alternate delegates from Members First Slate and one from the Teamsters Local 577 Slate. The record suggests that Brito may have spoken with up to approximately 30 individuals at UPS, while 14 members employed at UPS across all the Amarillo facilities cast ballots (not just the facility Brito campaigned at on the 27^th). The margin between the lowest successful candidate and the highest unsuccessful candidate in both the delegate and alternate delegate races is fewer than 14 votes. On these facts, we cannot exclude the possibility that the violation may have affected the outcome.

When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. The Rules provide a non-exhaustive range of permissible potential remedial action including, but not limited to, disqualifying a candidate, permitting or barring any delegate from participating in the Convention nomination process, reimbursements, fines, and rerun elections. In determining the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor considers the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential impact or interference on the election process. A rerun election for the affected delegate and alternate delegate positions would, in ordinary circumstances, be an available remedy. However, the Convention is scheduled to begin on June 14, 2026, and a rerun cannot feasibly be completed beforehand. In light of these timing constraints and the posture of the election process, we conclude that it is not appropriate to order a rerun at this time. Instead, we defer consideration of whether Brito’s conduct, either alone or in combination with any other violations, may warrant further relief in connection with the International officer election under Article XIII, Section 4(t) or (u). Cf McLaughlin v. Lodge 647, Intern. Broth. Of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, 867 F.2d 648 (US. Ct. App. 8th Circ. 1989) (discussing the equitable authority and discretion to fashion “a remedy to fit the practicalities of a particular situation” in enforcing the LMRDA, including, not to order a rerun despite a finding of a violation that could have affected the outcome in certain circumstances).

Accordingly, we find the following to be an appropriate REMEDY under the specific circumstances and hereby order the following:

We disqualify Brito as a delegate and bar him from participating in the Convention nomination process. The delegate position is awarded to the highest-ranking unsuccessful delegate candidate, Anthony Lara.

We order Brito to reimburse Local 577 for the two hours spent campaigning on union time on February 27, 2026 in violation of the Rules with 5 working days of the issuance of this decision.

We order Brito to immediately cease and desist from any further violation of the Rules.

Alleged Improper Campaigning on March 4, 2026 (P-107)

            Molinar’s second protest filed against Brito and the Teamsters Local 577 Slate alleges that on March 4, 2026, Brito, Business Agent Marcy Carrasco, and members of the Teamster Local 577 Slate and their affiliates, improperly campaigned inside a Tyson Foods facility. Specifically, protestor alleges that they gained access using their union position and left campaign leaflets in lockers in the women’s locker room. Protestor believes that Carrasco placed the flyers there and attributed the violation to the slate representatives but acknowledges that he has no evidence to show who placed the flyers there.

Campaign leaflets supporting Teamster Local 577 Slate were discovered in lockers in the women’s locker room at the Tyson facility on the morning of March 4, 2026, before the morning shift. The individual who observed the flyers and photographed them asked to remain anonymous due to employer policies prohibiting photography inside the facility. She stated that when she entered the locker room early that morning before the morning shift, she saw the flyers, took photographs, and immediately removed them. We have no evidence of any other witness who observed the flyers. There are no cameras in or around the women’s locker room. The witness stated that Connie Hernandez, a candidate on the Teamsters Local 577 Slate, was working that week at the Tyson facility and that Carrasco may be in a personal relationship with Farre Fernandez, the Human Resources director there. However, she stated that she did not see who placed the flyers in the locker room.

The Tyson Human Resources manager, Farre Fernandez, confirmed that campaigning is prohibited inside the locker rooms in the facility. He also confirmed that Carrasco was present in the facility during the week the flyers were placed there. However, he stated that he did not observe her engaging in any campaign activity or with campaign materials.

During Carrasco’s interview, she initially denied being present at the facility during that period but later acknowledged that she had been there, while continuing to deny placing or distributing campaign material.

Hernandez denies any involvement. Unlike Carrasco, we have no reason to doubt Hernandez’s credibility.

The placement of campaign materials in the women’s locker room constituted improper campaigning by the individual responsible. However, the record does not support a finding that a particular individual engaged in such conduct. No witness observed any person placing the flyers there. There is no evidence that Carrasco or Hernandez possessed the leaflets at the facility or were present in the locker room around the time they were discovered. Additionally, the Tyson facility employs more than 3,300 members, including 860 women, and the women’s locker room is accessible to employees and others with legitimate access to the facility. The protestor identified Carrasco and Hernandez as potential actors based on their presence at the facility the week the flyers were discovered and involvement with the Teamster Local 577 Slate. We find Hernandez credible. While we find do not find Carrasco to be credible based on her initial refusal to cooperate with the investigator and inconsistent statements regarding her presence at the facility, given the number of potential individuals with access and the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence linking any identified person to the placement of the leaflets, we have insufficient evidence to support a finding that Carrasco or Hernandez placed the flyers there. The Teamster Local 577 Slate denied being involved and we also have insufficient evidence to show that a member of the Teamster Local 577 Slate directed or assisted the unidentified individual to do this or was otherwise responsible.

We further find that this violation of the Rules could not have affected the outcome of the election. As discussed above, a violation of the Rules alone is not grounds for setting aside an election unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome may have been affected. Wirtz, 391 U.S. at 507. Here, the evidence shows that only the witness who asked to remain anonymous saw the flyers and immediately removed them. While the margin in this election was small, it was greater than one vote.

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 103

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

Jesse Molinar

jbmolinar@icloud.com

Alfonso Brito

LU577@teamsters.com

Brent Taylor

taylor745@sbcglobal.net

John Palmer

Jpalmer8734@gmail.com

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@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

Thomas Kokalas

thomas.kokalas@bracewell.com

Timothy S. Hillman

thillman@ibtvote.org

Paul Dever

pdever@ibtvote.org

Felicia Hardesty

fhardesty@ibtvote.org

msyfelicia@aol.com  

fhardesty09@yahoo.com

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com