2026 EAM 15 (re: 2026 ESD 59)

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

            Protest Decision 2026 ESD 59 (“ESD 59”) was issued on March 15, 2026 (OES Case No. E-112-030526) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).   ESD 59 addresses a protest filed by Norman Sauceda, a member of Local 542 and a candidate on the Teamsters 542 Members for Members Slate, in which he challenged the eligibility of all candidates on the opposing slate – the Teamsters 542 Unity Slate – which is comprised of ten delegate and six alternate delegate candidates.  Mr. Sauceda alleged that certain officer candidates on the Teamsters 542 Unity Slate remitted monthly dues in amounts insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article VI of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”), rendering them ineligible both to run as candidates and to nominate candidates.

             On March 15th, the Election Supervisor denied the protest, concluding that Mr. Sauceda’s protest was not timely filed and, notwithstanding that determination, separately finding that the candidates on the Teamsters 542 Unity Slate were eligible both to run as candidates and to nominate candidates.  On March 17, 2026, Mr. Sauceda appealed the decision.  On March 18, 2026, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for March 19, 2026.  On March 18, 2026, the Election Supervisor submitted supplemental written arguments in support of its position.

A hearing by video conference was held on March 19, 2026.  The following individuals attended the hearing: Kelly Hogan, Deborah Schaaf and Ron Webne, on behalf of the OES; Norman Sauceda, Jamie Griffin, Trent Moran, and Javier Sanchez on behalf of the Teamsters 542 Members for Members Slate; and Jamie Vasquez, Dwayne Garrett, Shelly Alsup, Mike West, and Ruth Duarte on behalf of the Teamsters 542 Unity Slate.

At the time of the hearing on March 19, 2026, Local 542’s delegate election was imminent.  Accordingly, I issued a decision at the hearing on March 19th, DENYING the appeal.  This written decision supplements my ruling issued at the hearing.

Background

Pursuant to Article VI, Section 1(a)(1)-(3) of the Rules, to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate, or International Officer position, a member must satisfy each of the following requirements:

(1)                Be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one’s dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments;

(2)                Be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination; and

(3)                Be eligible to hold office if elected.[1]

Additionally, pursuant to Article II, Section 5(i), to be eligible for nomination, a member must be nominated and seconded by a member in good standing, each with his/her dues paid through the month prior to the nominations meeting.

On February 17, 2026, Local 542 held its nomination meeting, at which candidates from both slates, including Mr. Sauceda, were nominated.  On March 4, 2026, Mr. Sauceda examined the local’s dues records with other candidates on his slate and discovered the discrepancies in dues payments more fully described below.  The following day, March 5, 2026, Mr. Sauceda submitted his protest to the Election Supervisor.  Also on March 5, 2026, ballots for the delegate election were scheduled to be submitted to the printer for mailing to the membership on March 19, 2026.

            In his protest, Mr. Sauceda alleged that three current officers of Local 542 running on the Teamsters 542 Unity Slate – Jaime Vasquez, the local’s Principal Officer and Secretary-Treasurer; Dwayne Garrett, the President; and Mike West, the Vice President – had failed to pay the requisite amount of dues during the twenty-four-month period preceding nomination.  Specifically, Mr. Sauceda observed at the time of his inspection of the records that these officers were each paying $118 in monthly dues, while at least one member of the Local Union was paying $150.  The amount of dues payable by officers of a local union is governed by Article X, Section 3 of the IBT Constitution, which provides that “[t]he monthly dues of salaried officers, Business Agents, and organizers employed by the Local Union on a full‑time basis, shall be equal to the highest rate of dues paid by any member of the Local Union.”  In his protest, Mr. Sauceda contended that the officers had not paid dues equal to the highest rate paid by any member of the Local Union and, accordingly, were not in good standing either to run as candidates or to nominate candidates under the Rules.  On that basis, Mr. Sauceda sought an order suspending the election, directing the OES to audit and review the candidates' eligibility, and striking the Teamsters 542 Unity Slate from the ballot.

Timeliness of Mr. Sauceda’s Protest

            Under Article XIII, Section 2(b), pre-election protests – including protests regarding the eligibility of candidates, nominators, and persons seconding nominations – must be filed within two working days of the date in which the protestor becomes aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the action protested; otherwise, such protests are deemed waived.  Here, it is undisputed that Mr. Sauceda was aware of the candidates running on the Teamsters 542 Unity Slate since at least February 17th – the date of the nomination meeting.    I agree with the Election Supervisor’s determination that, at a minimum, Mr. Sauceda knew or reasonably should have known as of February 17, 2026, which candidates were running and that he had the ability to investigate their eligibility and inspect the dues records at that time.  See In Re: Uhrynchuk, 2001 EAD 151 (February 8, 2001), aff’d, 01 EA 38 (February 26, 2011) (holding that, for purposes of eligibility protests, the relevant “action protested” is not the date on which a protester discovers circumstances arguably affecting a candidate’s eligibility, but rather the date on which the protester learns of the candidate’s nomination).  Mr. Sauceda did not examine the candidates’ dues history until March 4, 2026, and did not file his protest until the following day, March 5, 2026 – sixteen days after he reasonably should have become aware of the matters protested, and well beyond the two-day filing deadline prescribed by the Rules.

On appeal, Mr. Sauceda contends that the filing deadline should be excused on prudential grounds because the dues records were not publicly available to the membership and that, upon discovering the discrepancies, he promptly filed his protest.  That position is not consistent with the Rules or prior precedent.  There is no evidence in the record suggesting that Mr. Sauceda was denied access to the dues records or that the incumbent officers took any action to obstruct his ability to inspect them.[2]   To the extent Mr. Sauceda had concerns regarding the officers’ eligibility to run or to nominate, he had sufficient opportunity to examine the dues records and file a timely protest well within the deadline prescribed by the Rules.

Furthermore, as the Election Supervisor noted, the deadline for filing protests serves to ensure the proper administration of elections.  That principle is particularly relevant here, where strict deadlines govern posting requirements, ballot printing, and ballot mailing – each of which must be observed to maintain the orderly functioning of the electoral process.  See In Re: Farrell, 2000 EAD 49 (November 20, 2000) (finding protest untimely where it was filed twenty-four days after the nominations meeting and within one week of the scheduled date for printing and mailing of ballots).  Accordingly, given that Mr. Sauceda’s eligibility protest was not filed until the very day the ballots were scheduled to be sent to the printer, the Election Supervisor properly determined that extending the deadline for filing the protest was not appropriate under the circumstances presented here. 

Eligibility Investigation

            Notwithstanding its determination that the protest was untimely, the Election Supervisor investigated the dues payment histories of Mr. Vasquez, Mr. Garrett, and Mr. West.  The relevant eligibility period for purposes of assessing the adequacy of these officers’ dues payments was February 2024 through January 2026.  Upon inspecting the local’s dues records in the local’s TITAN system, the Election Supervisor determined that each officer paid $147 in monthly dues during this time period.[3]

To determine whether this amount satisfied the applicable eligibility requirements under the Rules, the Election Supervisor reviewed Article X, Section 3 of the IBT Constitution, which provides that the monthly dues of salaried officers employed by a Local Union on a full-time basis shall be equal to the highest rate of dues paid by any member of the Local Union.  Although Mr. Sauceda observed from the local’s records that the highest-paying member was remitting $150 in monthly dues, the Election Supervisor's review of Local 542’s complete dues history revealed that the highest dues rate paid by any member of the local was, in fact, greater: $166 per month from February 2024 through November 2024, $190 in December 2024, and $192 from January 2025 through the present.

Although the officers’ dues payments fell short of the highest rate paid by any member of the local, the Election Supervisor nevertheless concluded that the officers remained eligible both to run as candidates and to nominate candidates.  In reaching this determination, the Election Supervisor relied on established precedent construing Article X, Section 3 of the IBT Constitution to require a full-time officer to pay dues equal only to the highest rate paid by any member employed within the primary craft or industry of the local union.  See Eligibility of Fletcher, Powers, et al., 2016 ESD 83 (January 25, 2016).  The Election Supervisor further observed that this “primary craft” interpretation is not only reflected in prior determinations but is also expressly set forth in the IBT’s Manual for Secretary-Treasurer, which governs the financial administration of local unions.  See Section 5.17 of the 2025 Secretary-Treasurer’s Manual.

Thus, the Election Supervisor properly determined that the relevant inquiry was whether the officers paid dues equal to the highest rate paid by any member employed within Local 542’s primary craft or industry.  After interviewing IBT audit personnel and confirming their analyses, the Election Supervisor determined that Local 542’s primary craft or industry encompasses both UPS and Costco.  The highest dues rate paid by any member employed by either employer during the eligibility period ranged from $95 to $118.  Because the officers each paid $147 per month throughout the relevant period, their dues payments exceeded the applicable threshold and satisfied the eligibility requirements.  The members paying dues at the higher rates described above are not employed within Local 542’s primary craft or industry. 

On appeal, Mr. Sauceda contends that the Election Supervisor’s determination on these points is erroneous, arguing that the findings relied on inconsistent dues figures, failed to identify a single controlling standard as between the IBT Constitution and the Secretary-Treasurer's Manual, and employed shifting rationales to sustain the officers’ eligibility.  Mr. Sauceda further contends that these deficiencies reflect bias on the part of the Election Supervisor in the conduct of its investigation.

Upon careful review of ESD 59 and the full record before me – including Mr. Sauceda’s written submissions and the thorough arguments he advanced at the hearing – I find that the Election Supervisor’s determination is neither erroneous nor reflective of bias.  The standard applied by the Election Supervisor in assessing the candidates’ eligibility in its decision is grounded in prior precedent interpreting both the Secretary-Treasurer’s Manual and the IBT Constitution.  It is also undisputed that the primary crafts or industries for Local 542 are UPS and Costco.  Moreover, notwithstanding the untimeliness of the protest, the Election Supervisor conducted a thorough analysis of Local 542’s dues records, paystubs, and audit records — including interviews with IBT audit staff – to address Mr. Sauceda’s eligibility concerns.[4]  Based upon the full record before me, I find that the Election Supervisor’s determination that the candidates were eligible both to run and to nominate candidates was proper.

            For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DENIED.

SO ORDERED

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

DATED:         June 1, 2026
DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):