Sauceda, 2026 ESD 59
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: NORMAN ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 59
SAUCEDA )
) Issued: March 15, 2026
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-112-030526
)
)
)
INTRODUCTION
Norman Sauceda 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”) challenging the eligibility of ten delegate and six alternate delegate candidates on the Teamsters 542 Unity Slate (collectively, the “Candidates”) to run in Local 542’s delegate election in connection with the 2026 International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Delegate and Officer Election (the “Delegate Election”).
OES investigator Ron Webne was assigned this protest.
BACKGROUND
Local 542’s nomination meeting was February 17, 2026. Two slates were nominated: Sauceda’s slate, Teamsters 542 Members for Members Fearless Slate, and the Teamsters United 542 Slate. The following individuals are candidates for delegate on the Teamsters United 542 Slate: Jaime Vasquez, Dwayne Garrett, Mike West, Lynda Linville, Robert Moreno, Jennie Griffin, Abel Salazar, Ruth Duarte, Shelly Allsup, and Tim Peppers. The following individuals are candidates for alternate delegate on the Teamsters United 542 Slate: Maria Solano, Armando Medrano, Rosenda Paleo, Carl James, Josh Wells, and Chris Embury. There are five full-time salaried officers, business agents, or organizers of Local 542:[1] Jaime Vasquez (Secretary-Treasurer), Dwayne Garrett (President), Mike West (Vice President & Business Agent), Ruth Duarte (Business Agent), Shelly Allsup (Business Agent) (individually, an “Officer” collectively, the “Officers”).[2]
Sauceda alleges that on March 4, 2026, candidates inspected the Local 542 membership list printed from the TITAN system at the local union hall. Sauceda, Jabier Sanchez, Trent Moran and Eddie Gonzalez were present. He states that during this inspection, they observed the dues amounts paid by members of Local 542. He states that it was observed that “certain” local 542 officers and/or business agents “identified in this protest” were paying dues of $118, but a member employed at El Centro Regional Medical Center was paying dues of $150. Based on these records, Sauceda alleges that “those officers” were not paying dues equal to the highest dues rate paid by a member of Local 542 as required by Article X, Section 3 of the IBT Constitution.[3] He claims that since the officers on the Teamsters Local 542 Slate were paying less than the minimum required dues, they are ineligible to run in the election and were ineligible to nominate. Jaime Vasquez, Dwayne Garrett, and Mike West, three of the officers on the Teamsters United 542 Slate, served as the nominators and seconders for all candidates on that slate. Accordingly, Sauceda asks that the OES suspend the ballot certification pending investigation, review TITAN membership records of the Officers, determine the eligibility of the Officers to run for delegate, determine the validity of the nominations made by the Officers, remove any improperly nominated candidates, and correct or reprint ballots if necessary.
Thus, the issue in this protest is whether the Officers have paid at least the minimum amount of dues required of them as officers and business agents each month of the Eligibility Period as required to be eligible to run and to nominate or second other candidates.
APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS
Eligibility to Run for Office.
Pursuant to Art. VI, Section 1 (a)(1)-(3) of the Rules, to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate, or International Officer position, one must:
(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.
Under Article X, Section 5(c) of the IBT Constitution, generally, all members paying dues must pay them on or before the last business day of the current month. Any member failing to pay dues by that deadline shall not be in good standing and payment of such dues after the due date does not restore good standing status for that month (or months) in computing the continuous good standing status required to be eligible for office. Id. There is an exception: “It is well-settled that a member on dues check-off retains his good standing even if his dues were remitted late or not at all by the employer, provided he had signed a check-off authorization and had sufficient earnings or paid leave in the month from which dues could have been deducted.” In re Eligibility of Jakwan Rivers, 2015 ESD 32 (Sept. 21, 2015) (citing IBT Constitution, Article X, Section 5(c)) and (collecting cases). The local “shall notify the member of the employer’s failure” to make deductions from the member’s earnings to pay his dues. IBT Constitution, Article X, Section 5(c).
Eligibility to Nominate or Second.
Nominations must be made and seconded by members in good standing other than the nominee. To be in good standing a nominator or seconder must have his/her dues paid through the month prior to the nomination meeting. Eligibility of Terwilliger, 2011 ESD 82 (January 24, 2011); Eligibility of Walczak & Palacz, 2016 ESD 73 (January 16, 2016); Eligibility of Matysik, 2016 ESD 101 (February 7, 2016). Unlike the eligibility requirements to run for delegate, if a member misses the deadline to pay his or her dues, they may restore their good standing for purposes of nominating or seconding by payment of the delinquent dues prior to the nomination meeting. Specifically, dues must be paid by the day before the nomination meeting to be in good standing to nominate or second. Hadley, E128 (March 25, 1995) (emphasis added).
Officer Dues.
Pursuant to Article X, Section 3 of the IBT Constitution:
The 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. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit any Local Union from adopting a dues scale higher than the one provided herein, either by continuance of established dues formulas or by Local Union action in accordance with applicable law. The General Executive Board shall have the authority to waive any of the foregoing increases in extreme hardship cases.
(emphasis added).
Timeliness.
Sauceda is a candidate on the slate opposing the Teamsters United 542 Slate. He was present at the nomination meeting, and there is no dispute that he knew the Candidates, including the Officers, were nominated on February 17, 2026. Sauceda did not file this protest until March 5, 2026—16 days later. Under Article XIII, Section 2(b), pre-election protests, including “[p]rotests regarding eligibility of candidates, nominators and persons seconding nominations,” must be filed “within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived.” The Election Supervisor has, in appropriate circumstances, treated the timeliness requirement for pre-election protests as prudential rather than jurisdictional. This allows the Election Supervisor to assess lateness in light of the specific facts and to promote the need to ensure fair resolution of certain issues. Consistent with that approach, we have, where warranted, exercised discretion to consider otherwise untimely protests on the merits. However, we decline to do so here.
Although precedent recognizes that timeliness may be treated as prudential, not jurisdictional, Election Officers have repeatedly “afforded little leeway in the case of late-filed eligibility protests, given the strict deadlines under which posting requirements, ballot printing and mailing scheduled must be met.” Uhrynchuk et al., 2000 EAD 151 (Feb. 8, 2001) aff’d 01 Elec. App. 038 (KC) (Feb. 26, 2011) (emphasis added); See Daly, 2001 EAD 141 (February 6, 2001) (citing Murdoch, E123 (March 18, 1996) (protest held untimely where filed three working days after protester knew of candidate's nomination); Milne, E71 (January 31, 1996) (protest held untimely where received by fax on fourth working day after protester knew of candidate's nomination); Mantucci, E24 (January 22, 1996) (protest held untimely where filed three business days after protester knew of candidate's nomination). Such concerns are present here since Sauceda waited more than two weeks to challenge the eligibility of the entire opposing slate at a time when the election process is well underway and addressing such a protest now would risk substantial disruption to the orderly administration of the election as the ballots were printed the same day the protest was filed.
This conclusion is supported by precedent. In Uhrynchuk et al., the protestor did not contest that he knew of the nomination of each of the candidates that were the subject of his protest as of the nomination meeting on January 17, 2001, but argued that his eligibility protest was timely because the “action being protested” was his subsequent discovery on January 25, 2001 of a memorandum relating to the eligibility of those candidates rather than their nomination itself. The Election Administrator rejected this argument explaining that “the definition of the ‘action being protested’ in the context of eligibility protests is not the date at which a protester learns of circumstances arguably affecting a candidate’s eligibility, but rather, the date at which the protester learns of the candidate’s nomination.” Uhrynchuk et al., 2000 EAD 151 (Feb. 8, 2001) aff’d 01 Elec. App. 038 (KC) (Feb. 26, 2011) (citing Milne, E71 (January 31, 1996); Mantucci, E24 (January 22, 1996); and Stansburge, E99 (February 15, 1996). This rule places the onus on the protestor to promptly investigate the basis for an eligibility protest so that the election may proceed in an orderly manner.
Moreover, in Farrell, 2000 EAD 049 (Nov. 20, 2000), the protestor filed an eligibility protest 23 days after the nomination meeting. He claimed that his protest was timely because he did not become aware of issues concerning the amount of dues the challenged candidates had paid until the day before he filed the protest. The Election Administer noted that there was no evidence to lead him to doubt the protestor’s assertion that he did not know and reasonably could not have known of the information leading to his eligibility protest at the time of the nomination meeting. However, the Election Administer denied the protest finding that the protest was untimely. He explained
[the] protest would be timely so long as the need to provide him with an accurate and fair resolution of these allegations were not outweighed by the risk of hinderance to the election. This risk is great given that [the protestor] filed his protest twenty-four days after the date of the nominations meeting date and within a week of the date that the local’s ballots were to be printed and mailed.
(emphasis added) (citing Stansburge, E99 (February 15, 1996) (protest filed 13 working days after local union’s nomination meeting but one day after actual knowledge of the candidate’s nomination was untimely given time concerns relative to printing and distributing ballots).
To the extent Sauceda argues that his protest is timely because he only discovered the rate of dues the Officers were paying giving rise to this protest on March 4, 2026, and filed the day after this discovery, we follow the precedent discussed above and reject his argument. There is no dispute that Sauceda knew of the Candidates nomination on February 17, 2026. See Uhrynchuk et al., 2000 EAD 151 (Feb. 8, 2001) aff’d 01 Elec. App. 038 (KC) (Feb. 26, 2011) (denying the eligibility protest as untimely).
Here, the ballots were printed on the same day Sauceda filed his protest. Thus, the Election Supervisor could not grant his protest without reversing a step in the election process, which would prejudice the orderly process of the election. Compounding this is the fact that the ballots are scheduled to be mailed on March 19, 2026. Thus, even if the protest and any appeal that might arise from it could be decided before March 19, 2026, granting the protest would require that the ballots be redesigned, approved and then reprinted assuming the scheduled printer could complete this on short notice. It would then require Local 542 to place the new ballots in envelopes for mailing. Thus, the filing of this protest at this late stage created an even more substantial risk of hindrance and disruption to the election than in Farrell where the protest was filed within a week of the date the ballots were to be printed. Contrast Hughes, E119 (February 27, 1996) (protest filed 13 working days after local union’s nominations meeting but one day after learning of possibly disqualifying eligibility factor was timely because the ballots had yet to be printed and sufficient time remained for resolution of protest and any appeal it might engender before ballots printed and mailed).
Assessing all the facts in conjunction with the applicable caselaw, we find that this protest was filed UNTIMELY and thus DENY it against the Candidates. The Candidates are, therefore, eligible to run as delegates or alternate delegates.
Eligibility Investigation.
Sauceda alleges that the Officers are ineligible to run as candidates and were ineligible to nominate because TITAN records show that they were paying dues in the amount of $118 while one member of Local 542, an employee of El Centro Regional Medical Center, was paying $150 in dues. Even if Sauceda timely filed this protest (which we expressly do not find), review of the TITAN records shows that each Officer paid $147 in dues every month for the Eligibility Period[4] via check-off.
Article X, Section 3(d) applies to the Officers. Vasquez does not dispute that during the Eligibility Period, the Officers paid dues at a rate lower than the highest rate paid by a member of Local 542 during the Eligibility Period. Vasquez stated that he first learned that officers and business agents were paying dues at a rate lower than the highest rate paid by a member of Local 542 in December 2025 during an audit by one of the IBT’s senior auditors, Joe Polo. When he was first informed of this, Vasquez thought it was an inadvertent oversight, but, the auditor explained that Article X, Section 3(d)(iv) has consistently been interpreted to require full-time officers, business agents, and organizers to pay the highest dues rate paid by any member employed within the primary craft or industry represented by an Affiliate as memorialized in the 2012 and 2025 Manual for Secretary-Treasurers regarding Salaried Officers, Business Agents and Organizers (referred to as the “2012 Manual” and the “2025 Manual”). He confirmed that the dues rate paid by Local 542 officers, business agents, and organizers in those months was, in fact, higher than the rate required per the IBT General President and General Secretary-Treasurer’s long-standing interpretation of Article X, Section 3(d)(iv) of the IBT Constitution and, therefore, their dues payments were consistent with the IBT Constitution.
Chri Kuiper, Assistant to the Secretary-Treasurer of the IBT, confirmed that Local 542’s two primary crafts are UPS and Costco. Upon review of the TITAN records and ledger payments, he confirmed that the highest rates for the Eligibility Period for UPS members within Local 542 was $114 (February 2024 through September 2024), $116 (October 2024 through September 2025), and $118 (October 2025 – current).[5] Costco employees have monthly dues rates ranging from $50 to $95. Thus, since UPS members have higher dues, Local 542 uses UPS as their craft when calculating monthly dues for officers.
Polo and Kuiper’s statements are consistent with 2012 Manual and the 2025 Manual—the two Manual’s for Secretary-Treasurers regarding Salaried Officers, Business Agents and Organizers in effect during the Eligibility Period.[6]
Section 7.24.1 of the 2012 Manual states:
The monthly dues rate of full-time salaried officers, Business Agents and organizers employed by the Affiliate on a full-time basis shall be adjusted to coincide with increase/decrease to the monthly dues rate of the members of the Affiliate whose dues are calculated based upon employment at a craft represented by that Affiliate and whose dues rate is used as a basis for the rate of the full-time salaried officers, Business Agents and organizers.
It provides for certain exceptions including:
A third exception was recommended and approved by the General Executive Board that establishes that the highest dues rate in effect for a member employed within the primary craft or industry represented by an Affiliate under a collective bargaining agreement administered by the Affiliate would establish the highest dues rate paid by a member that would then be the membership dues rate for the full-time salaried officers, Business Agents and organizers. This means that for most general chartered Affiliates, the dues rate for a member employed by United Parcel Service or working within the freight, carhaul or tank haul industries would constitute the highest dues rate in the Affiliate. However, for members employed within the public sector, the Affiliate would have to establish what constitutes the primary craft/industry and request from the Office of the General Secretary-Treasurer approval regarding the highest dues rate to be paid by the full-time salaried officers, Business Agents and organizers.
(emphasis added). Section 5.1.7 of the 2025 Manual also provides a list of exceptions to the requirement that the “monthly dues rate of full-time salaried officers, Business Agents, and organizers employed by the Affiliate on a full-time basis shall be equal to the highest rate of dues paid by any member of the Affiliate.” One of these exceptions is:
The General Executive Board approved that the highest dues rate paid by any member employed within the primary craft or industry represented by an Affiliate would establish the highest dues rate paid by a member. That would then be the dues rate for the full-time salaried officers, Business Agents, and organizers. Ther ate must be approved by the Affiliate’s Executive Board.
(emphasis added).
As discussed above, review of the TITAN records confirm each Officer paid $147 dues each month throughout the Eligibility Period, which is greater than the dues rate of the highest dues rate paid by a Local 542 member employed by UPS during the Eligibility Period. See Eligibility of Fletcher, Powers, et al., 2016 ESD 83 (Jan. 25, 2016) (denying the protest and holding that the officers and business agents payment of dues equal to the rate paid by local UPS mechanics, not members employed in the movie industry who earned a higher hourly rate, was the appropriate wage to use for the purpose of calculating the dues of full-time officers and business agents of Local 542).
Moreover, the evidence shows that Local 542 has been audited by the IBT’s auditors, and the auditor concluded that the dues rate used for full-time officers and business agents was proper under the IBT Constitution. All of the Officers paid their dues throughout the Eligibility Period by check-off, and our review of their paystubs confirms that even if the Officers were required to pay dues in the amount equal to or greater than the rate of dues paid by the highest paying member (whether or not employed in the primary craft or industry,)[7] each Officer had sufficient earnings each month of the Eligibility Period for those higher dues amounts to have been deducted. Thus, even if a mistake was made as to the local’s deduction of dues via check-off, it would not render the Officers ineligible. See Uhrynchuck, et al., 2001 EAD 151 (Feb. 8, 2001), aff’d, 01 – Elec. App. 038 (Feb. 26, 2001 (rejecting the “contention that local union officers and business agents on checkoff should be penalized because of a local union dues collection mistake of which they were ignorant.”); see also In re Eligibility of Ken Owen, 2006 ESD 79 (Feb. 10, 2006) finding member eligible because he remained on check-off with his employer and had sufficient earnings each month).
For all of the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Candidates are Eligible and 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 59
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Jaime Vasquez
Dwayne Garrett
Mike West
Lynda Linville
Robert Moreno
Jennie Griffin
Abel Salazar
Ruth Duarte
Shelly Allsup
Tim Peppers
Maria E. Solano
Armando Medrano
Amendran5@students.imperial.edu
Carl James
Josh Wells
Chris Embury
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Ron Webne
Deborah Schaaf
Kelly Hogan
[1] Sauceda also specifically requests that the OES identify the dues payments to ensure they are sufficient for these five individuals.
[2] Some of the Candidates serve as Shop Stewards at their worksites in addition to their full-time position with their employer but are not full time salaried employees with the local.
[3] In an e-mail to Webne dated March 9, 2026, Sauceda clarified it was observed that members Vasquez, Garrison, West, Duarte, and Allsup were “listed with dues of $118 while a Local 952 member employed by Lel Centro Regional Medical Center was listed with dues of $150.”
[4] The nomination meeting for Local 542 took place on February 17, 2026. Thus, the Officers needed to pay their dues in a timely manner from February 2024 through January 2026 (the “Eligibility Period”). They began paying $118 per month in dues beginning February 2026.
[5] Kuiper identified two possible anomalies at UPS that should be reviewed outside of the majority with a dues rate of $119. Even if the highest dues rate in the primary craft or industry for Local 542 is $119, as discussed herein, it appears that the Officers are eligible based on the fact that their dues payments were $147 throughout the Eligibility Period.
[6] The 2012 Manual was in effect until the publication and distribution of the 2025 Manual to all Affiliates.
[7] The highest dues paid during the Eligibility Period was $166 (Feb. 2024 through November 2024), $190 (December 2024) and $192 (January 2025 through present).