Stedronsky & Negrete, 2026 ESD 74

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: STEDRONSKY,                    )           Protest Decision 2026 ESD 74

ROSEMARY and                               )

NEGRETE, JOSE FRANCISO          )           Issued: May 5, 2026

                                                            )

Protestors.                                           )           OES Case No. P-058-012626,

                                                            )           P-071-020826
                                                            )
                                                            )

INTRODUCTION

Rosemary Stedronsky, on behalf of the Power for All Slate, and Jose Francisco Negrete, on behalf of the 952 Dump O’Brien Slate, (collectively the “protestors”) each filed a protest “to raise significant concerns about the integrity and business practices of the Election Company UNILECT.” The protests raise almost verbatim the same allegations but as to each protestor’s respective slate and local delegate election.[1] Accordingly, we consolidated these protests.

Protestors allege that UniLect Corporation (“UniLect”) “knowingly and willingly misrepresented both their organization and their legal standing in previous elections” which “cast doubt on the validity of elections spanning several years” that “has undermined confidence” amongst members as to UniLect’s “ability to administer fair and honest elections.” In other words, protestors claim that UniLect misrepresented its legal status and requested that the elections be administered by another vendor. Additionally, protestors claim that “continued engagement with UNILECT by the IBT and its Locals is troubling[.]”

Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated these protests. As part of the investigation, she interviewed protestors Stedronsky and Negrete, Randy Cammack, Local 63’s principal officer and candidate on the slate opposing the Power for All Slate, Eric Jiminez, Local 952’s principal officer and candidate on the slate opposing the 952 Dump O’Brien Slate, and Catherine Burkhart, Director of Election Services for UniLect. The investigation also included review of all materials submitted by interested parties and other all relevant documents pursuant to the OES’s independent investigation including, but not limited to, Local 63 and Local 952’s LUEP, and public documents filed on California’s Secretary of State and Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) website.

INVESTIGATION & BACKGROUND

UniLect Corporation

UniLect, an independent third-party provider of election services, has been conducting local and national union elections full time since 2008, officer elections for the IBT since 2010, and delegate elections for the IBT since 2011. Since that time, UniLect has provided election services to many IBT locals for delegate, officer, and merger elections. Some of these locals have had white ballots, but most of them have utilized the full election services UniLect provides. In addition to working with the IBT, UniLect works with many other local and national unions, including but not limited to, the SEIU, IBEW, UFCW, IATSE, National Postal Mail Handlers, ATU, UBC, National Nurses United and the California Nurses Association.

According to Catherine Burkhart, in the 17 years UniLect has been conducting union elections for the various unions referenced above, prior to this election cycle, UniLect had only been referenced in protests in two or three elections, generally due to a misunderstanding of the election process overall or a complaint that was not substantiated by any fact. She emphasized that UniLect has been careful not to become involved with the politics of any IBT election as it is an independent provider of election services. Significantly, Burkhart stated that UniLect has been asked to conduct elections with IBT locals even after elections they administered resulted in changes to local leadership.

Pursuant to Local 63’s local union election plan (or “LUEP”) and Local 952’s LUEP, Paul Mihalow, Chief of Staff for Joint Council 42,[2] conducted each nomination meeting and both Local 63 and Local 952 engaged UniLect to administer the delegate election following the nomination meeting. See Local 63’s LUEP, Question 1(a) & 1(b); see also Local 952’s LUEP, Question 1(a) & 1(b). Per its LUEP, Local 63’s nomination meeting occurred on January 24, 2026, ballots for Local 63’s delegate election were mailed February 24, 2026, and the count occurred on March 26, 2026. Per Local 952’s LUEP, its nomination meeting was held on February 6, 2026, ballots for Local 952’s delegate election were mailed March 13, 2026, and the count occurred on April 6, 2026.

Protestors filed these protests alleging that UniLect did not have a license to conduct business in California from April 2024 through January 2026 and, therefore, was not permitted to administer elections during that time. As a result, protestors claim that members have been misled by UniLect’s legal status undermining members confidence in UniLect’s ability to administer fair and honest elections. Specifically, protestors allege that the California FTB[3] suspended UniLect’s license to conduct business under the California Revenue & Taxation Code §§ 23301, 23301.5, and/or 23775 thereby losing its powers, rights, and privileges to do business in California during the reference time period. Protestors do not dispute that UniLect revived its license on January 9, 2026. However, protestors allege that before that, UniLect knowingly and willingly misrepresented its legal status undermining the confidence of IBT members in UniLect’s ability to administer fair and honest election. They claim that Local 63 and Local 952’s decision to retain UniLect to administer its delegate election breaches its fiduciary duty and is “a procedural failure by the union.”[4]

The protestors allege that UniLect’s business license was suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board.[5] According to the FTB and the State of California Office of the Secretary of State (“SOS”) websites, UniLect’s license was suspended in April 2024 and revived on January 9, 2026. UniLect states that it was unaware that its license was suspended prior to December 2025. Specifically, Burkhardt[6] states that on the afternoon of December 10, 2025,[7] UniLect learned that a protest had been filed in connection with an unrelated officer election it was administering (not filed with the OES and not under the Election Supervisor’s jurisdiction). Burkhart confirmed that this was the first time UniLect learned its license had been suspended and that UniLect immediately contacted its accountant (who was not immediately available due to holidays) and the FTB to resolve the issue. UniLect’s attempts to contact the FTB were also not immediately successful (they could not get a person on the phone), but UniLect hired someone that specializes in FTB matters and is experienced in reviving business licenses to active status/good standing. Burkhart stated that UniLect’s license was suspended due to late annual FTB filings—not failure to pay taxes. Burkhart emphasized that UniLect took immediate action including filing all necessary documentation and filings to revive its license. UniLect’s license was revived and returned to “active” status on January 9, 2026.

Review of the FTB and SOS websites confirm Burkhart’s statements. Specifically, review of the FTB website shows that UniLect’s status has been revived. Review of UniLect’s history on the California SOS website confirms that UniLect’s license was suspended on April 2, 2024 and the status of UniLect’s license changed from “Suspended – FTB” to active on January 9, 2026—almost a month before Local 63’s  nomination meeting and over two months before Local 952’s nomination meeting. UniLect currently has and had during the administration of both Local 63 and Local 952’s delegate elections, an active license.

Local 63 and Local 952 engaged UniLect to administer its delegate election prior to UniLect reviving its license. Local 63’s principal officer, Randy Cammack, explained that Local 63’s bylaws and the IBT Constitution do not require a business license to conduct an election for the local. He emphasized that having a business license does not, itself, impact how well an entity conducts an election. In other words, the mere fact that an entity has a business license does not definitively mean that it will fairly, honestly, openly, and properly administer an election. The opposite is also true—just because a company does not have a business license does not mean that it cannot fairly, honestly, openly, and properly administer an election.

Cammack, who has participated in 46 elections, said that in his experience, UniLect has always conducted fair elections. He stated that UniLect has always been professional and taken appropriate steps to ensure fair elections including, but not limited to, being transparent, open to observation and answering questions from members and candidates in furtherance of properly administering elections. Cammack said that he is unaware of issues with UniLect administering an officer or delegate election prior to these allegations this election cycle. He articulated his understanding and emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair and open election process. He stated that if he believed there were issues with the integrity of UniLect’s election services, he would terminate the relationship. He also noted how UniLect took immediate action upon learning that its license was suspended. While Cammack acknowledged that the lapse in its license was a mistake by UniLect, he did not see it as a basis to find and retain another outside agency to conduct Local 63’s delegate election since UniLect continues to provide excellent services. We credit Cammack’s statements and find that they are supported by the record.

Eric Jimenez similarly explained that Local 952 has a long history of using an outside vendor for its elections to ensure that the ballots of its members are processed efficiently, fairly and transparently. He said that UniLect has conducted elections for Local 952’s at least since at least 2019, and that it has provided appropriate election services resulting in fair elections. He stated that in his experience, UniLect has treated incumbents and opposition candidates/slates equally including, but not limited to, being responsive to questions from either side. Despite the allegations in Negrete’s protest, Jiminez stated that he has not been provided information that undermines his confidence in UniLect to fairly and openly conduct Local 952’s delegate election and he determined that there was no basis for the local to hire a different company, particularly in light of the fact that UniLect’s license was revived prior to the administration of Local 952’s delegate election.

ANALYSIS

Jurisdiction

As an initial matter, we deny these protests to the extent protestors challenge elections other than Local 63 and Local 952’s delegate elections this election cycle. Both protestors reference elections, generally, including ones prior to each of the local’s 2026 delegate election. They do not explicitly identify which, if any, other elections are incorporated into their protests and protestors have not established that the Election Supervisor has jurisdiction over such elections or that they have standing.[8] See Jordan, 2001 EAD 76 (January 3, 2001) (the Election Supervisor does not have authority over local officer elections).

Timeliness

These protests were not timely filed and are, therefore, waived. Under the Rules, pre-election protests “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[.]” Rules, Article XIII, Section 2(b).

UniLect learned that its license was suspended on December 10, 2025, and IBT locals quickly learned of UniLect’s suspended license as the information was publicly broadcasted online including social media platforms. In fact, four days later, on December 14, 2025, IBT members held a public press conference at the California Attorney General Bonta’s office “To Act on Unilect Illegal Operations.” Various speakers from different IBT locals spoke at the press conference including, protestor Stedronsky, raising concerns about UniLect’s suspended license.

A video of the public press conference was posted on Youtube on December 15, 2026.[9] The caption of the video is, “CA Teamsters Have Press Conf At CA AG Bonta’s Office Demanding Shutdown Of UniLect Election Services” and the description includes, “Teamsters from throughout California rallied on December 14, 2025 at the the [sic] State Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office in Sacramento to demand that the shutdown the operations of UniLect election services which has been running elections in California with a suspended business license. Teamsters from throughout California charged the company with having improper election procedures with a lack of transparency and …”  Review of the video shows speakers standing in front of a banner that states, “California Teamsters Demand Fair Union Elections” and includes logos for various slates, including, but not limited to, Stedronsky’s Power for All Slate. Members of the 952 Dump O’Brien slate were also involved. The logo of the Dignity & Pride slate that ran in Local 952’s 2025 officer election was also on the banner at the press conference. Danny Herbert, a candidate on the Dignity & Pride slate, was also a candidate for delegate on the 952 Dump O’Brien slate in the delegate election with Negrete.[10]

Stedronsky was aware of UniLect’s suspended license as early as December 14^th but did not file her protest until January 26, 2026[11]—more than a month after the press conference concerning UniLect’s suspended license that she attended and actively participated in. Negrete did not file his protest until February 8, 2026—almost two months after the publicly broadcasted press conference and media posting concerning UniLect’s license. The fact that UniLect was retained to administer Local 63 and Local 952’s delegate elections was publicly available information set forth in the LUEPs available on the ibtvote.org website since September 2025.[12] The protestors were either aware of or reasonably should have been aware of the circumstances giving rise to these protests well before they filed. See O’Brien et al., 2025 ESD 4 (Sept. 11, 2025) (denying protest concerning allegations arising from publicly available podcast as untimely despite protestor’s statements that he did not become aware of the podcast until just before filing protest); see also PR-112-LU206-EOH (June 2, 1998) (the Election Officer found the protest filed months after the subject article was published on paper and online untimely because “[t]he Election Appeals Master has stated that ‘long public exposure’ of a fact justifies the inference of constructive knowledge.”) (quoting In re Heiman, 96 - Elec. App. - 172 (KC) (April 18, 1997)).

Accordingly, we DENY these protests as untimely.

UniLect’s Business License

Even if these protests were timely filed, we would deny them on the merits.

Article II of the Rules governs the Nominations and Elections of Delegates and Alternate Delegates. As referenced above, local unions are required to submit an LUEP that provides, in detail, how the local will conduct its delegate election. Locals are permitted to use an election committee or agency to administer the delegate election and nominations. See Art. II, Section 4(b)(4) (“a description of the composition (e.g. rank and file members, Local Union staff, Local Union officers, etc.) of the Local Election Committee or any substitute therefor, the method of selection of such body and, if known, the names of the individuals selected to serve”); see also Art. II, Section 4(b) (5) (“the name, address and telephone number of any outside election agency proposed to be used by the Local Union to conduct the nominations meeting(s) or delegates election(s), and a description of the duties the Local Union proposes such agency be assigned to perform).

Local unions using an outside election agency are responsible for ensuring that the agency understands and follows the Rules. See IBT Election Supervisor’s Manual, p. 1; see Form 34 Certification of Third Party Election Agency; Form 34A Third Party Election Agency Worksheet; Form 34B Certification of Third Party Election Agency. Notably, the Rules, the IBT Election Supervisor’s Manual, none of the relevant forms including the Form 34 Certification of Third Party Election Agency, Form 34A Third Party Election Agency Worksheet, or Form 34B Certification of Third Party Election Agency, or the IBT Constitution require a business license to conduct a delegate election. To the contrary, the fact that the Rules allow a local union to conduct its own election with an election committee demonstrates that no business license is required.

           Under the California law protestors cite to, a business license may be suspended if it fails to file certain tax filings.[13] See CA Rev. & Tax Code §§ 23301, 23301.5; see also FTB enforcement guidance. Protestors argue that contracts entered into during the suspension of a license under the referenced law are voidable—not void—meaning that the contract is not automatically void but that the party who entered into the contract with the entity with a suspended license has the right to cancel it. It is not required to do so. See TRC § 23304.1(a) (“Every contract made in this state by a taxpayer during the time that the taxpayer’s powers, rights, and privileges are suspended … pursuant to Section 23301, 23301.5, or 23775 shall, subject to Section 23304.5, be voidable at the request of any party to the contract other than the taxpayer.”).[14] It follows that it is not illegal to transact with an entity you entered into a contract with while that entity had a suspended license. If it were, all such contracts would be void and not voidable. See Voidable, Black’s Law Dictionary (11^th ed. 2019) (defining the term “voidable” contract as “[v]alid until annulled” and “capable of being affirmed or rejected at the option of one of the parties.”); see also Juijers v. DeMarrais, 11 Cal.App.4^th 676, fn 2 (App. Ct. CA. 1992) (“voidable contract is one which may be rendered null at the option of one of the parties, but is not void until so rendered.”) (quoting Whiter Dragon Productions, Inc. v. Performance Guarantees, Inc., 196 Cal.App.3d 163, 172 (App. Ct. CA. 1987)).

As protestors acknowledge, UniLect did not administer Local 63 or Local 952’s delegate election without a business license. UniLect’s license was revived on January 9, 2025. Local 63 and Local 952’s nomination meetings and elections were conducted weeks after UniLect’s license was revived.

Moreover, although UniLect’s license was suspended from April 2024 through January 9, 2026, the Rules do not require a business license to administer a delegate election, and we have found no authority establishing that administering an election without a business license is prohibited. In fact, local unions are permitted to conduct their own elections demonstrating that no business license is required.[15]

Protestors’ allegations arise out of the fact that UniLect had a suspended license but the absence of a license itself is sufficient to demonstrate that UniLect’s administration was unfair or affected the outcomes. An FTB suspended license impacts UniLect’s rights (e.g., rendering contracts voidable) but does not automatically invalidate the integrity of elections administered by it. To the extent UniLect’s powers, rights and privileges were suspended under California law as alleged in the protests, any contract entered into between Local 63 or Local 952 and UniLect to administer the delegate elections was voidable at each local’s option; neither local was required to void it. As set forth above, both Cammack and Jiminez articulated a reasonable basis for choosing to allow UniLect to administer the delegate elections. We credit these statements and find their stated reasons for not voiding the contract reasonable, particularly in light of the absence of evidence showing that such decisions were ill intended or nefarious. We further note that both of these protests were filed after each of the local’s nomination meeting (despite the publicly available information and knowledge of the license issue well before that) and voiding the contract would have prejudiced members of the local at such a late stage in the process.

Additionally, we find no evidence that UniLect knowingly and willingly misled members about its legal standing. Burkhart, whom we find credible, explained that UniLect only became aware of this issue in December 2025, and immediately took action. As discussed above, the documentary evidence corroborates Burkhart’s statements and protestors have not provided evidence to the contrary. See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 1.

For all of the reasons discussed herein, we find that no violation occurred that may have affected the outcome of the elections and DENY these protests.[16]

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 74

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

Rosemary Stedronsky

Maiden2thedeath@yahoo.com

Jose Francisco Negrete

jfnegrete952@gmail.com

Randy Cammack

randytboss@aol.com

Eric Jiminez

Ejimenez@teamsters952.org

Catherine Burkhart

cburkhart@unilect.com

Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,

ed@hsglawgroup.com

James Donovan Jr.

jdonovan.ne@gmail.com

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@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

Deborah Schaaf

debschaaf33@gmail.com  

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com