OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: MEJIA, ROBERT ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 117
WHITE, MARK )
GARLICK, CHRISTOPHER ) Issued: August 3, 2026
)
Protestor. ) OES Case Nos. P-088-022326;
) P-093-022526; P-117-031026;
) P-146-041926
INTRODUCTION
In February 2026, the Election Supervisor granted two pre-election protests by Jared Frankian, a General Teamsters Union Local 431 (“Local 431”) member. In Frankian, 2026 ESD 46, the Election Supervisor found that the President of Local 431 improperly retaliated against Frankian when he terminated his position as a shop steward because Frankian exercised his right to seek election as a delegate to the International Convention. In Frankian, 2026 ESD 49, the Election Supervisor found that the Local 431 Executive Board violated the Rules when it improperly used union equipment and stationery for campaign purposes.
We return to Local 431 to address three related post-election protests. Robert Mejia, Mark White, and Christopher Garlick are Local 431 members and, until recently, were also long-standing shop stewards. Mejia and Garlick separately filed post-election protests alleging that Scott, Jeno Espinoza, Local 431 Vice President, and Gilbert Prieto, Local 431 Secretary-Treasurer, also retaliated against them for seeking – and winning – election as delegate or alternate delegate to the Convention (P-088-022326 or P-088; P-117-031026 or P-117; P-146-041926 or P-146). White filed a post-election protest alleging that Local 431 Executive Board retaliated against him because he refused to endorse the candidate slate that included Scott and Prieto (P-093-022526 or P-093).
For the reasons detailed below, we GRANT the protests.
OES Investigator Charles Deming investigated this protest.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
- Local 431 and the Frankian Protests
We recount the circumstances of the Frankian protests to the extent they are relevant to the protests at issue here.
Local 431 is a general local union headquartered in Fresno, California with members employed by companies involved in shipping, warehouses, disposal and beverage distribution, including UPS and Sun-Maid. Frankian is an employee of UPS and served as a shop steward since 2019. Local 431 was previously led by members of the 431 Solidarity Slate, including President Steve Sharp. In September 2025, Frankian was appointed by the Local 431 Executive Board as a Business Representative, a paid position. In December 2025, Frankian supported Sharp and the 431 Solidarity Slate in their unsuccessful bid for local officer re-election against the United for Change Slate.
Scott assumed the position of President of Local 431. By letter dated January 1, 2026, Scott notified Frankian that his employment as Business Representative was terminated. Scott wrote that the decision was the result of the realignment of Local 431’s organizational structure and was “in no way a reflection of your dedication to this office.” Upon his termination as Business Representative, Frankian returned to his role as shop steward.
Local 431 was designated 3 delegates and 1 alternate delegate to the Convention. During the evening of January 8, 2026, the local union held its delegate nomination meeting during which two complete slates were nominated. Scott, Prieto, Espinoza, and Andrew Finch (alternate) comprised the United for Change slate. In opposition, Frankian, Sharp, Garlick, and Mejia (alternate) were nominated as the Solidarity Slate.
Four days later, on January 12, 2026,[1] Frankian received a letter dated January 8 and signed by Scott (the “January 8 Letter”) terminating his role as shop steward. In that letter, Scott wrote:
Leadership has determined to move in a different direction with steward representation at this facility…. This decision reflects the Local’s assessment of its current representational needs and expectations for the role of Shop Steward and is made in the interest of ensuring effective and consistent representation for the membership.
Scott provided no other reason for the termination of Frankian’s role as shop steward in the letter. United States Postal Service (USPS) tracking records revealed that the January 8 Letter was received by USPS for mailing on January 10, 2026.
Frankian filed a protest asserting retaliation based on his decision to seek election as a Convention delegate. During the subsequent investigation, Scott informed the investigator that he removed Frankian as shop steward because Frankian was trying to undermine his leadership. According to Scott, that belief was based on a series of text messages that were provided to him by a shop steward at Sun-Maid. The investigation revealed, however, that (a) the subject text messages were sent approximately two weeks after the date of the January 8 Letter, and (b) the Sun Maid shop steward did not provide the text messages to Scott until February 5, 2026. Thus, based on the January 10 mailing indicated on the USPS records and the lack of credible alternative explanation for Frankian’s removal as shop steward, the Election Supervisor found that Scott retaliated against Frankian in violation of the Rules.
- Removal of Robert Mejia as Sun-Maid Shop Steward (Protest P-088)
On January 8, 2026, Mejia – like Frankian – was nominated as a candidate for alternate delegate on the Solidarity Slate. On January 12, 2026, Mejia found a USPS attempted delivery form attached to his door. Review of the USPS tracking history revealed that the letter was first received by USPS on January 10, 2026 at 4:21 pm (the same day USPS records indicate that the Frankian termination letter was mailed). That same day, January 12, Scott notified Mejia by telephone call that he had been removed as a shop steward. Scott’s letter to Mejia removing him from the position of shop steward was identical in all material respects to the letter sent to Frankian, and asserted that removal decision was “made in the interest of ensuring effective and consistent representation for the membership.”
The investigator contacted Scott regarding Mejia’s removal. In his email response, Scott claimed that the decision to remove Mejia was made, and the letter sent, before the delegate nomination meeting the evening of January 8. Scott maintained that he had office manager Michelle Mineni send the removal letters for Frankian, Mejia, and a third steward, Yolanda Negrete, during the morning of January 8, before he knew that Mejia and Frankian would be nominated for Convention delegates. Scott attached an email purportedly sent to Mineni the morning of January 8 requesting that she send the shop steward termination letters to Frankian, Mejia, and Negrete.
In support of Scott’s version of events, Mineni submitted a letter to the investigator stating the letters to Mejia and Negrete were placed in outgoing mail and picked up by USPS at approximately 10am on January 8, 2026. Mineni made no mention of the Frankian letter in her statement.
- Removal of Mark White as Shop Steward (P-093)
Mark White has been a shop steward at UPS for approximately 20 years, working with at least four Local 431 presidents during that time. White supports the Solidarity Slate and did so during the local officer election in late 2025. According to White, on or about January 9, 2026, he and two other shop stewards – Esteban Perez and Steve Cowlings – had a conference call with Justin Scott and Gilbert Prieto to discuss the delegate election. Scott assured the shop stewards that they would not be subject to any adverse action regardless of who they supported in that election.
Despite those assurances, in late February, several long-serving shop stewards that supported the Solidarity Slate in the ongoing delegate election were removed from those positions, including White, Perez, Cowlings, Lou Floratos, and Aren Scarano.[2]
The investigator contacted Scott regarding the protest filed by White. During that call, Scott claimed that White had been removed from his shop steward role because “there had been complaints made about him not treating people fairly.” When the investigator pressed Scott for more information, Scott was unable to provide any additional details, including the names of any of the complainants or any details of how White had allegedly not been treating people fairly.
- Removal of Christopher Garlick as Shop Steward (P-117/P-146)
Christopher Garlick is a driver at UPS and had been a shop steward for approximately 23 years. Like Frankian and Mejia, Garlick was nominated for and subsequently won election as a Convention delegate on Solidarity Slate.
Garlick filed two related protests: P-117 and P-146. In P-117, on March 10, 2026, Garlick accused Prieto and Espinoza of “[r]etaliation for running a Slate against the current administration…and [r]etaliation for winning delegates election and violation of office.” In P-146, on April 19, 2026, Garlick asserted that he was subject to further retaliation in April 2026 when Local 431 management posted a “new Steward list” that did not include Garlick. Garlick claimed that his removal from his position as shop steward was a direct retaliation for seeking election as a Convention delegate.
On or about March 11, 2026, the investigator contacted Garlick by telephone to obtain more specific information regarding the alleged retaliation. According to Garlick, on March 7, 2026, Garlick was approached by his supervisor, Kenneth Ray. Ray informed Garlick that Espinoza had filed a complaint alleging self-dispatching by Garlick four days earlier on March 3.[3] Of particular relevance here, Espinoza is a UPS driver, Vice President of Local 431, and at that time was running against Garlick in the delegate election.
Chris explained to Ray that on March 3, when he got to the Fresno UPS Store on his assigned route another UPS driver, Anthony Navarro, was there also retrieving packages to take back to the USP distribution hub. Garlick had packages on his truck that needed to be brought to the distribution hub and asked to transfer those packages to Navarro’s truck. Garlick and Navarro transferred the packages to Navarro’s truck. According to Garlick, those actions are consistent with UPS policies. According to Garlick, Espinoza, who also was at the UPS store, approached Garlick and threatened him to the effect of “don’t f--- with my route.”
After speaking with Ray on March 7, Garlick received a call from Frankian. Frankian told him that Prieto had informed Frankian that Garlick was longer a shop steward. As of the time of the initial conversation with the investigator, Garlick had not been formally advised by the Local 431 management regarding a change to his status as shop steward. The investigator spoke with Frankian, who confirmed that Prieto told him that Garlick was no longer a shop steward.
On March 12, 2026, the investigator spoke to Ray, Garlick’s supervisor, who confirmed that Espinoza had filed a complaint against Garlick for self-dispatching on or about March 3. According to Ray, when he receives a complaint, as the supervisor he is responsible for investigating the complaint. Ray stated that he pulled Garlick’s truck and package records for March 3 and found no irregularities. Ray described the complaint as “baseless” and concluded the investigation.
On March 14, 2026, the investigator spoke by telephone with Espinoza, who confirmed that he is a driver at UPS and Vice President of Local 431. When asked if he filed a complaint against Garlick for self-dispatching, Espinoza repeatedly denied that he had filed any complaint. When the investigator pointedly asked Espinoza why his supervisor would have stated that he filed a complaint, Espinoza responded that he doesn’t trust management and thinks they are “getting political.”
On April 17, 2026, Local 431 management posted a new list of shop stewards. Garlick was absent from that list.
Applicable Law Regarding Retaliation
These related protests are controlled by Article XIII, Section 3 of the Rules, which provides:
Post-election protests shall only be considered and remedied if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election, except that any timely protest alleging improper threats, coercion, intimidation, acts of violence or retaliation for exercising any right protected by these Rules shall be considered and remedied without regard to whether the alleged violation affected the outcome of an election.
Article XIII, Section 3(b).
Article VI, Section 12(a) of the Rules provides that “[a]ll Union members retain the right to participate in Campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.” 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 [the Rules] is prohibited. Article VI, Section 12(g); Hoffa, P812 (August 16, 1996).
To prevail on a claim of retaliation, “the evidence must demonstrate that (1) the alleged victim engaged in activity protected by 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.” Cooper, 2005 ESD 8 (September 2, 2005). The Election Supervisor will not find retaliation if he concludes that the union officer or entity would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protestor’s protected conduct. Gilmartin, P32 (January 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 EAM 75. See also Miner, 2005 ESD 1 (May 27, 2005); Link, 2011 ESD 207 (April 12, 2011); Leal, P51 (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 30; Wsol, P95 (September 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 17.
Findings
Based on the totality of the circumstances here, the Election Supervisor grants the protests and finds that the Executive Board of Local 431, including Scott, Espinoza, and Prieto, have engaged in a pattern of retaliation against either the candidates for delegate on the Solidarity Slate, or supporters of those candidates, in violation of the Rules. The targets of this retaliation include Mejia, Garlick, and White.
First, each of the three men engaged in activity protected by the Rules. Specifically, Garlick and Mejia engaged in protected activity on January 8, 2026, and thereafter when they accepted nominations as a candidate / alternate delegate to the International Convention. See, e.g., In re Miner, 2005 ESD 1 (“The Rules protect the right of eligible IBT members to run for delegate.”). For his part, White’s support of the Solidarity Slate, and refusal to support the Unity for Change Slate, in the delegate elections falls squarely within the scope of Section 12(a) protections.
Second, it can hardly be disputed that the executive officers of Local 431 took adverse action against Mejia, Garlick and White when they terminated their positions as shop stewards at either UPS or Sun-Maid. See, e.g., In re Phelan, P-711-LU550-NYC (April 24, 1996) (retaliation found where steward removed from position because of candidacy on opposing slate); In re Gonzalez, 2016 ESD 358 (December 30, 2016) (same).
Finally, as to the third element, the Election Supervisor finds that – when viewed in conjunction with each other and with the circumstances of the previous investigations – that the three protestors here have satisfied their burden of establishing that the protected activity was “a motivating factor” in the adverse action.
- Robert Mejia
With respect to Robert Mejia, the circumstances of his removal essentially mirror the previously upheld claims of retaliation against Frankian. On January 8, 2026, Mejia was nominated on the Solidarity Slate as a candidate for alternate delegate to the Convention. According to USPS records, less than two days later, on January 10, 2026, Scott mailed notice to Mejia that he was being removed from his position as shop steward at Sun-Maid. That mailing was done at the same time and manner as the identical letter sent to Frankian notifying him of his removal as shop steward.
Here, when questioned about Mejia’s removal, Scott claimed that he provided the Frankian and Mejia letters to the Local 431 office manager for mailing during the morning of January 8. According to Scott, at that time, neither he nor the other members of the Executive Board – Espinoza, Finch, and Prieto – had any knowledge that Mejia or Frankian would be nominated for Convention delegates later that evening. Scott further provided an email to his office manager and the office manager’s statement in support of that contention.
In resolving these protests, the Election Supervisor necessarily makes findings based, in part, on credibility. Here, USPS tracking records undermine Scott’s assertion that the Mejia and Frankian removal letters were mailed the morning of the nomination meeting. Notably, at no point during the previous investigation of the Frankian removal did Scott provide a copy of the purported January 8 email. Scott, instead, claimed that he removed Frankian as shop steward during the second week of January after he learned of a series of disparaging text messages. However, the OES investigation revealed the subject text messages were sent approximately two weeks after Scott removed Frankian as shop steward. As to Scott’s invitation to question other Executive Board members (and Unity for Change delegate candidates) regarding knowledge of Mejia’s intended candidacy on January 8, the Election Supervisor declines and notes that we do not paint on a blank canvas. Prieto issued the January 12 “notice” that was previously deemed to be a violation of the Rules (see fn. 1, supra), and Espinoza was less than candid when he denied making a complaint against Garlick for alleged self-dispatching on March 3, 2026.
- Christopher Garlick
As detailed above, on or about March 3, Espinoza – who at the same time was running against Garlick for Convention delegate – made what was determined to be a “baseless” complaint against Garlick for self-dispatching, conduct serious enough that if true could result in termination of employment. Garlick was advised of the complaint on or about March 7, the final day that the delegate election ballots could be received for counting. Espinoza later claimed that he had never made such a complaint, an assertion directly contradicted by the UPS supervisor.
However, within days of the close of the election – and Garlick’s victory – Prieto informed Frankian that Garlick was being removed as a shop steward, a position that he had held for over two decades. No reason was provided. Based on (a) the timing of the unfounded complaint by Espinoza against Garlick, (b) Espinoza’s lack of candor regarding the making of the complaint, and (c) Prieto’s statement regarding Garlick’s removal within days of the delegate election, and (d) further viewed in the context of the Frankian and Mejia removals, the Election Supervisor finds that Garlick’s seeking election as a Convention delegate was a motivating factor in the Local 431 Executive Board’s decision to remove him as a shop steward in April 2026.
- Mark White
As detailed above, White was a supporter of the Solidarity Slate, both in the local officer election and during the Convention delegate election. On or about January 9, 2026, White and two other shop stewards participated in a call with Scott and Prieto to discuss the delegate election. Scott assured the shop stewards that they would not be subject to any adverse action despite the fact that they did not endorse the Unity for Change Slate.
Despite those assurances, in the middle of the Convention delegate election process, the Local 431 Executive Board removed White and several of the other stewards who supported the Solidarity Slate from their long-held positions as shop stewards. When asked by the investigator why White was removed as a shop steward, Scott claimed that there had been complaints about him “not treating people fairly.” Significantly, however, Scott could not provide the name of a single member who had complained, nor any description as to how White had allegedly treated a member unfairly so as to justify removal. Accordingly, we find that White’s failure to support the Unity for Change Slate in the delegate election was a “a motivating factor” in the decision to remove him as a shop steward.
* * * * *
Finally, we acknowledge the authority of duly elected union officers to set union policy, and that removal from an appointed union position because of personality conflicts or political rivalry is not prohibited. See, e.g., Wsol, 95 EAM 17; see also Virtue & Ramos, 2007 ESD 403, citing Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431, 441 (1982) (LMRDA does not prohibit a union officer from removing appointed officials for political reasons). As made clear in the Virtue & Ramos decision:
While the Rules protect members’ rights to stand for election, running for office necessarily expresses policy disagreement with competing candidates (or slates) because, ultimately, only one candidate can win for each open office. Our prior decisions hold that the Rules do not bar removing an appointed union official based on “political rivalry.”…. Virtue lost at the polls. The Rules protected his right to run for office, but once the election is certified they do not shield him, or his avowed supporters, from termination from discretionary positions by the elected authority.
2007 ESD 403 at 6 (citation omitted). However, the Election Supervisor in Virtue & Ramos expressly recognized:
A different result may have been reached here had the terminations occurred at an earlier time…. If a termination or demotion occurs during an election campaign, the Election Supervisor may investigate in response to a protest … to determine if the personnel decision was made to gain an electoral advantage, punish an opponent, or discourage opposition in violation of the Rules.
Id. at 6-7; see also Gonzales, 2016 ESD 358.
Thus, timing is of utmost importance. The timing of the decisions here by the Local 431 Executive Board – led by Justin Scott and Gilbert Prieto – to remove Robert Mejia, Christopher Garlick, and Mark White as shop stewards is impossible to ignore. As such, we find that those adverse actions were taken to gain an electoral advantage, punish an opponent, or discourage opposition, all in relation to the Convention delegate election.
ACCORDINGLY, the Election Supervisor finds that the Local 431 Executive Board – and specifically Justin Scott and Gilbert Prieto – engaged in improper retaliation in violation of Article VI, Section 12(g) of the Rules, and grants each of the protests.
Remedy
When the Rules have been violated, the Election Supervisor “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor considers the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interference with the election process.
We order Scott, as President of Local 431, to immediately reinstate Mejia, Garlick, and White to their former positions as shop stewards. We also order Scott and any other member of the Local 431 Executive Board to cease and desist from further retaliation in violation of the Rules.
We order Local 431 to immediately post the notice (attached hereto as Exhibit 2), in both English and in Spanish, on all employer bulletin boards, as well as bulletin boards at Local 431 offices, and on the homepage of Local 431’s website for a period of 30 days, beginning no later than August 5, 2026.
Affidavits attesting to the completion of that posting, and identifying each posting location, shall be filed by Local 431 and/or Scott with the Office of the Election Supervisor, by August 7, 2026.
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
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Robert Mejia
Mark White
Christopher Garlick
Jared Frankian
Justin Scott
Gilbert Prieto
Jeno Espinoza
Richard Hooker
John Palmer
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.)
Paul Dever
Charles Deming
Greg Friedholm
Kelly Hogan
EXHIBIT 1
NOTICE TO ALL LOCAL UNION 431 MEMBERS PER ORDER OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
The Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules") provide that IBT members are to be free from employer retaliation for activity protected under the Rules, including the right to run for IBT Convention Delegate, and the right to campaign for IBT Delegate and International Officer candidates.
The Election Supervisor enforces these provisions of the Rules. After an investigation, the Election Supervisor has determined that Justin Scott, President of Local Union 431, and Gilbert Prieto Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union 431, improperly terminated:
Robert Mejia;
Christopher Garlick; and
Mark White,
from their respective positions as shop stewards in retaliation for exercising their protected rights under the Rules, namely to seek election or to support any candidate for election as delegate to the International Convention.
As a remedy for this violation of the Rules, the Election Supervisor has ordered Scott and Local 431 to immediately reinstate Robert Mejia, Christopher Garlick and Mark White to their positions as shop steward. The Election Supervisor has also ordered Scott, Prieto and any other Executive Board member to cease and desist from any further retaliation against its employees in violation the Rules, and to post this notice for thirty days beginning August 5, 2026.
No one, including any employer, may retaliate or threaten to retaliate against you because of your exercise of any right under the Rules, including your right to stand as a candidate or your right to support or not support any candidate.
Any attempt to interfere or retaliate against you because of your political activity in connection with the International Officer or Convention Delegate election should be reported to the Election Supervisor at the address or phone number below.
Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
ELECTION SUPERVISOR
1750 K STREET, NW, SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
TELEPHONE: 844-428-8683
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS THAT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR THIRTY (30) CONSECUTIVE DAYS, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED OR DEFACED IN ANY MANNER, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
[1] On or about January 12, 2026, the Executive Board also posted a notice, on Local 431 letterhead bearing the names of the four Unity for Change candidates for delegate election and signed by Prieto, on union bulletin boards. That notice purported to update members on an investigation regarding accrued sick and vacation time payouts made to the outgoing administration. The Election Supervisor found the notice to contain several statements that were “either inaccurate or misleading,” and that appeared “intended to discredit the candidates for delegate election on the Solidarity Slate.” Frankian, 2026 ESD 49.
[2] Perez had been a shop steward for approximately 13 years. Scott contacted him by phone and informed that he was being removed from his shop steward position. When asked why, Scott told Perez that he had done nothing wrong but that the Union wanted to move in “a different direction.”
Floratos served as a shop steward for approximately 23 years. Scott approached him in 2025 and requested his support in his campaign for the presidency. When Floratos refused, Scott told Floratos that he had nothing against him and would work with him if he were to win the election.
Scarano also served as a shop steward for 23 years. He spoke with Scott before the delegate elections and believed there was no issue despite his support of the Solidarity Slate. In February, however, Scott notified Scarano, who is 55 years old, that his services were no longer needed as a shop steward because Local 431 was “trying to get younger.”
[3] The term “self-dispatching” at UPS refers to situations in which a driver deviates from his assigned route or takes packages from another driver in order to extend his route, all for the purposes of earning overtime compensation. UPS identifies this conduct as a theft of services and as grounds for termination.