Lopez, 2026 ESD 45
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
FREDDY LOPEZ, ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 45
) Issued: February 20, 2026
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-062-013126 and
) P-063-013125
INTRODUCTION
Freddy Lopez, the spokesperson and leader of the Local 150 Members Union Slate, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Jesus Sanders alleging that he retaliated against another Local 150 member and delegate candidate who was going to run on the Local 150 Members Union Slate, Taylor Michaud (Protest No. P-062-013126, referred to herein as “P-062”). Lopez subsequently filed a second protest against Sanders and Matt Andrakowicz, both of whom are candidates for delegate on an opposing slate, for allegedly campaigning using union or employer resources in violation of Article VII, Sections 12(a) and (b) of the Rules (Protest No. P-063-013125, referred to herein as “P-063”). These protests were consolidated for decision.
Deborah Schaaf, a representative of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”), investigated these protests. The investigation included interviews of protestor Freddy Lopez, Jesus Sanders, Taylor Michaud, Matt Andrakowicz and Joel Nobel as well as review of materials submitted by interested parties and persons interviewed in connection to these protests and TITAN records.
BACKGROUND
P-062 – Alleged Retaliation
Michaud stated that sometime in late summer 2025, Lopez’s son in law, David Cruz, asked Michaud if he was interested in getting more involved in Local 150. Michaud said he was interested. Cruz told Michaud that “Freddy” Lopez would call him. Michaud stated that nothing ever came of this conversation and that he otherwise did not know Lopez.
Lopez confirmed that his son in law spoke with Michaud about getting more involved in Local 150. However, Lopez stated that Cruz also specifically discussed having Michaud join the Local 150 Members United Slate about 4-5 weeks before the nomination meeting and that doing so would involve a trip to Las Vegas. According to Lopez, Michaud told Cruz that he was interested and wanted to go to Las Vegas.
According to Michaud, he first learned that he was on Lopez’s slate on January 5, 2026, when his co-worker Mario Escobar told him that he had seen Michaud’s name on the slate form. Text messages corroborate Michaud’s statements. Specifically, the text messages show that Michaud did not know he was on a slate or what he was apparently running for. In fact, Michaud asked, “Don’t I have to sign something? I don’t even know who that guy [Lopez] is?” He stated, “I’ve never talked to that guy in my life[.]”
Lopez stated that he first spoke with Michaud on January 6, 2026—the same day Lopez handed in his slate declaration form and the day before the nomination meeting. According to Lopez, after casual introductions, Michaud told Lopez he wanted to get off the slate. Lopez asked why, and said to Michaud, “I thought you wanted to get involved and go to Vegas. Are they threatening you?” Lopez stated that Michaud responded, “No, I just don’t want any trouble with the Union.” Lopez alleges that Michaud told him that Sanders asked Michaud why he was running against Sanders and his slate after they helped Michaud get his job back. According to Lopez, the conversation ended with Michaud stating that he would like to join Lopez’s slate but did not want to cause any trouble with the union.
Michaud acknowledged that in November 2025, his employment was terminated and that Sanders helped him get his job back. However, according to Michaud, Sanders did not question Michaud about being on Lopez’s slate, did not threaten him, or say anything that Michaud interpreted to be a threat. Sanders denied the same.
P-063 – Alleged Campaigning on Union Time
Lopez alleges that Sanders and Andrakowicz campaigned while on union time and on employer property in violation of Article VII, Section 12(a) and 12(b) of the Rules. Specifically, Lopez alleges that on January 27, 2026, Sanders distributed campaign flyers to Local 150 members at the UPS West Sacramento facility during normal working hours. Lopez alleges that on January 29, 2026, Andrakowicz spoke with a group of four or more members inside the UPS Rancho Cordova facility and handed out campaign flyers during normal working hours. He acknowledged that he does not know if either Sanders or Andrakowicz were on union-paid time or approved vacation or unpaid leave during these times.
Sanders
Sanders stated that he is present at the UPS West Sacramento hub nearly every day and was present there on January 27, 2026, as alleged; however, Sanders denies campaigning on that day. Sander does acknowledge that he campaigned in the parking lot at the UPS West Sacramento facility on January 29, 2026, from approximately 8:00 am to 9:00 am but was on vacation time. The Local Union 150 TITAN operator confirmed that Sanders took one hour vacation that day.
Andrakowicz
Andrakowicz[1] confirmed that he arrived to the UPS Rancho Cordova on Friday, January 30, 2026, at approximately 7:30.[2] Andrakowicz acknowledged that he distributed campaign literature in the parking lot outside the facility for about 20 minutes before entering the facility to post Local 150’s revised Form 37 on the official bulletin board(s). On his way out, Andrakowicz stated that he encountered some members in the break-and-smoking area and spent about 10 minutes talking to them about an automation issue. He left the facility and returned to the parking lot following this brief conversation and continued to hand out flyers outside the facility until approximately 9:45. Andrakowicz stated that he used 2 hours of vacation on January 30, 2026—from 8:00 am to 10:00 am. This was confirmed by the Local 150 TITAN operator.
Joel Noble is a full-time Feeder Driver at UPS Rancho Cardova. Noble confirmed that Andrakowicz was at the UPS Rancho Cardova facility on January 30th. Noble stated that he saw Andrawkowicz speaking with some part-time pre-load employees in the outside break-area smoking. Noble did not see Andrakowicz hand out any flyers. Later that day Noble asked Chris, a co-worker who was in the break area when Andrakowicz was, if Andrakowicz discussed the delegate election. Chris said Andrakowicz told them he would be campaigning and passing out flyers out front, and hoped they’d stop by but that after that comment, the subject changed and there was no further conversation about the delegate election. Chris also stated that he did not see Andrakowicz distribute any fliers.
ANALYSIS
Article VII, Section 12(g) prohibits retaliation for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules. Specifically, it states:
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.
Article VII, Sections 12(a) and (b) prohibit campaigning during working hours and time paid for by the union. However, campaigning during paid vacation is not prohibited. Additionally, campaigning incidental to work or regular union business is not a violation of the Rules. Specifically:
(a) All 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. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to distribute campaign literature (and otherwise to solicit support for a member’s candidacy) outside a meeting hall before, during and after a Union meeting, regardless of Union policy, rule or practice.
Where any candidate or other member of the Union exercises or attempts to exercise any right under the Rules to campaign for or against the candidacy of any person for the position of delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer, members of the Union shall have the reciprocal right to hear or otherwise receive such campaign advocacy.
No candidate or member may campaign during his/her working hours. Campaigning incidental to work is not, however, violative of this section. Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not a violation of this section.
(b) All Union officers and employees, if members, retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, openly to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions. However, such campaigning must not involve the expenditure of Union funds. Accordingly, officers and employees (and other members) of the Union may not campaign on time that is paid for by the Union. Campaigning incidental to regular Union business is not, however, a violation of this section. Further, campaigning during paid vacation, paid lunch hours or breaks, or similar paid time off is also not a violation of this section. An endorsement of a candidate may be made by a Union officer or employee, but solely in his/her individual capacity. The Union or a Local Union as such or the General Executive Board or an Executive Board of a Local Union as such may not endorse or otherwise advance a candidacy, even if all members agree on the endorsement or candidacy.
(emphasis added).
P-062 – Alleged Retaliation
There is no evidence to support Lopez’s allegations that Sanders retaliated against Michaud. Lopez was not present during the alleged conversation between Sanders and Michaud giving rise to P-062 and both Sanders and Michaud deny that such a conversation took place. In fact, Michaud denied that Sanders played any role whatsoever in Michaud’s withdrawal from the Local 150 Members United Slate and stated that he does not know Lopez. We find insufficient evidence to corroborate these allegations.
Accordingly, we DENY P-062-013126.
P-063 – Alleged Campaigning on Union Time
We find that Sanders was on paid vacation time, confirmed by the TITAN operator, when he was present at the UPS West Sacramento facility and campaigning on vacation time is permitted. See Rules, Art. VII, §12(a); see e.g., Marchetta, 2016 ESD 222 (May 25, 2016). Lopez does not dispute this. Rather, he acknowledges that he is not personally aware of whether Sanders was on paid union time at that time. Moreover, the activities alleged—which Lopez admits that he did not personally witness—did not violate the Rules. As discussed above, Sanders stated that he campaigned in the parking lot at the UPS West Sacramento facility on January 29, 2026, from approximately 8:00 am to 9:00 am while on vacation time. Campaigning in an employer parking lot is permitted. See Rules, Art. VII, § 12(e). We have no evidence that Sanders conduct violated the Rules.
Accordingly, we DENY Protest No. P-063-013126 as to the allegations against Sanders.
We find that Andrakowicz was on paid vacation time, confirmed by the TITAN operator, when he was present at the UPS Rancho Cardova facility. As with Sanders, Lopez does not dispute this. Rather, he acknowledges that he is not personally aware of whether Andrakowicz was on paid union time at that time.
At most, Andrakowicz told a couple employees on break smoking in a break-area inside the gates to the facility that he would be campaigning and passing out flyers out front in the parking lot and hoped they would stop by. He did not otherwise discuss the delegate election or campaign. Campaigning incidental to work is not a violation of the Rules. See Rules, Art. VII, § 12(a). In assessing whether campaign activity is incidental, one looks to the absence of evidence that an employee failed to perform work, deviated from prescribed duties, or interfered with another employee’s work. Pinder, 2006 ESD 133 (March 7, 2006) (campaigning found to be incidental where UPS driver distributed flyers to two others while loading truck and encouraged them to vote; conduct did not interfere with duties, and all drivers left terminal on time.). We also consider the duration of the campaigning incident; brief or transient matters are more likely to be held incidental to work. See id. (less than 5 minutes); Thompson, 2001 ESD 332 (April 30, 2001), aff’d, 01 EAM 73 (May 24, 2001) (one-on-one campaign exchange that took place while both employees worked together to set a trailer hitch held incidental); Cooper, 2005 ESD 8 (September 2, 2005) (exchange lasting 10 seconds found to be incidental); Gibbs, 2010 ESD 54 (December 9, 2010) (asking for and receiving a campaign postcard held incidental campaigning where exchange took a few seconds); and Joyce, 2011 ESD 111 (February 14, 2011) (brief comment while employee was on her way to lunch was incidental).
We find that Adnrakowicz’s comment was brief, only a matter of seconds, occurred in a break area where the employees he made the statement to were on break and did not cause any employee to deviate from their tasks or otherwise interfere with the anyone’s work. We also find that despite the allegations in the protest, neither Noble nor his co-worker Chris, saw Andrakowicz distribute fliers while inside the facility.
Accordingly, we DENY Protest No. P-063-013126 as to the allegations against Andrakowicz.
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):
Jesus Sanders
Matt Andrakowicz
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
dschaaf@ibtvote.org
Kelly Hogan
kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com
[1] Prior to obtaining his current position as a full-time business agent for Local 150 in 2019, Andrakowicz worked at UPS Rancho Cordova.
[2] The protest alleges that Andrakowicz was present inside the UPS Rancho Cordova facility on “Thursday, January 29, 2026.” Andrakowicz denied being present on Tuesday, January 27, 2026, or Thursday, January 29, 2026. Thus, we infer that Lopez’s allegations concern Andrakowicz’s activities on January 30th.