Sauceda, 2026 ESD 75
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: SAUCEDA, ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 75
NORMAN )
) Issued: May 5, 2026
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-084-022026
)
)
)
INTRODUCTION
Norman Sauceda, on behalf of the Teamsters 542 Members for Members Fearless Slate, filed a protest challenging the “integrity, legality, and procedural compliance of” Local 542’s delegate election based on UniLect’s administration of other elections and “submit[s] a vote of No Confidence regarding the selection of UniLect Election Company as the service provider for the Local 542 Delegate Election.” His allegations are similar to the allegations set forth and discussed in Aguilar, 2026 ESD 73 and Stedronsky & Negrete, 2026 ESD 74.
Deborah Schaaf investigated this protest. As part of this investigation, she interviewed Sauceda, Jaime Vasquez, Local 542’s principal officer and candidate on the opposing 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 542’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 542 local union election plan (or “LUEP”), Local 542 retained UniLect to administer its nomination meeting and delegate election. See LUEP, Question 1(a) & 1(b). Per the LUEP, Local 542’s nomination meeting was February 17, 2026, ballots were scheduled to be mailed on March 19, 2026, and the count on April 14, 2026.
Sauceda filed this protest[1] alleging that UniLect’s business license was suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board from April 2024 through January 2026 undermining members of the Teamsters 542 Members for Members Fearless Slate’s confidence in UniLect to conduct a fair, honest, and proper nomination and delegate election. Specifically, he alleges that the FTB[2] suspended UniLect’s license to conduct business in the state of California 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 referenced time period. Sauceda alleges that by retaining UniLect to administer the delegate election, Local 542 failed to comply with local law in violation of the IBT Constitution and states that his slate does not trust UniLect to administer a fair and certifiable election.[3]
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[4] states that on the afternoon of December 10, 2025,[5] 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—than a month before Local 542’s nomination meeting. UniLect currently has and had during the administration of Local 542’s nomination meeting and delegate election, an active license.
Local 542 engaged UniLect to administer its delegate election prior to UniLect reviving its license. Local 542’s principal officer, Jaime Vasquez, said that on or about the date of the nomination meeting, he asked UniLect about its status with California’s Franchise Tax Board and was assured that its license was revived and active. This is corroborated by the documentary evidence. He said that Local 542’s Bylaws do not require elections to be conducted by a certified election company or a company with a license in good standing with all local, state or federal agencies explaining that like the Rules, the Bylaws permit election committees (referencing Bylaws Page 24, #5). According to Vasquez, UniLect has administered several election cycles for Local 542 and that “UniLect has conducted the most professional elections I have ever experiences, always assuring an honest and fair process through the entire election.” Vasquez stated that Local 542’s runs its elections with the goal of ensuring that its members voices are heard and that the results come from an honest and fair process. He stated that his belief that “UniLect gives such guarantees.”
ANALYSIS
Jurisdiction
As an initial matter, we deny this protest to the extent Sauceda challenges elections other than Local 542’s delegate elections this cycle. Sauceda references elections, generally, including ones prior to Local 542’s delegate election. While he does not explicitly identify which, if any, other elections to the protests incorporate, he has not established that the Election Supervisor has jurisdiction over such elections or that he has standing.[6] See Jordan, 2001 EAD 76 (January 3, 2001) (the Election Supervisor does not have authority over local officer elections).
Timeliness
Thia protest was not timely filed and is, 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 Sauceda, raising concerns about UniLect’s suspended license.
A video of the public press conference was posted on Youtube on December 15, 2026.[7] 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, Sauceda’s Teamsters 542 Members for Members Fearless Slate.
Sauceda was aware of UniLect’s suspended license as early as December 14th but did not file his protest until February 19, 2026[8]—more than two months after the publicly broadcasted press conference concerning UniLect’s suspended license that he attended and actively participated in. The fact that UniLect was retained to administer Local 542’s delegate election was publicly available information set forth in its LUEP available on the ibtvote.org website since September 2025.[9]
Accordingly, we DENY this protest as untimely.
UniLect’s Business License
Even if this protest was timely filed, we would deny it 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 protestor cites to, a business license may be suspended if it fails to file certain tax filings.[10] See CA Rev. & Tax Code §§ 23301, 23301.5; see also FTB enforcement guidance. Protestor argues 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.”).[11] 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 (11th 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.4th 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)).
UniLect did not administer Local 542’s delegate election without a business license. UniLect’s license was revived on January 9, 2025—more than a month before the nomination meeting. 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.[12]
The absence of a license itself is insufficient to demonstrate that UniLect’s administration was unfair or affected the outcome. An FTB suspended license impacts UniLect’s rights (e.g., rendering contracts voidable) but does not automatically invalidate the integrity of the 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 542 and UniLect to administer the delegate election was voidable at the local’s option; the local was not required to void it. As set forth above, Vasquez articulated a reasonable basis for choosing to allow UniLect to administer the delegate elections. We credit these statements and find his stated reasons for not voiding the contract reasonable, particularly in light of the absence of evidence showing that the decision was ill intended or nefarious. We further note that this protest was filed after the nomination meeting and voiding the contract would have prejudiced members of the local at such a late stage in the process.
Lastly, Sauceda alleges that members have reported, generally, irregularities or procedural concerns that could undermine confidence in the election process. However, other than these conclusory statements, Sauceda has not provided any additional facts or evidence to show that such conduct occurred or how UniLect’s suspended license in conjunction with any such conduct may have affected the outcome. See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 1 (“With respect to any protest, it shall be the burden of the protestor to present evidence that a violation has occurred.”)
For all of the reasons discussed herein, we DENY this protest.[13]
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 75
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Norman Sauceda
Jaime Vasquez
Catherine Burkhart
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James Donovan Jr.
Richard Hooker
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Deborah Schaaf
Kelly Hogan
[1] Sauceda cites to Article XXII, Section 5(a) of the IBT Constitution, governing protests filed in connection with local officer elections, and Article II, Section 2(b) of the IBT Constitution governing the Union’s Fiduciary’s Code of Ethics. Section 2(b) states that “[a]ny member who serves as a fiduciary of an employee benefit plan covering members or employees of the International or any of its subordinate bodies shall pledge to follow the following code of Ethics with respect to his or her service as a fiduciary to the plan.” The protest, although unclear, seems to cite to subsection 1, which states that, “[t]he fiduciary shall faithfully serve the best interests of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan in accordance with the requirements of applicable law. Article II, Section 2(b) does not govern this protest. Section 2(b), as outlined above, applies only to fiduciaries of an employee benefit plan, whereas UniLect was serving as an election supervisor. However, protestor also states that he filed his protest pursuant to the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election and specifically references Local 542’s delegate election.
[2] The state agency responsible for administering and collecting California’s personal income tax and corporate franchise and income taxes.
[3] Sauceda alleges that UniLect’s certification of the election is derived from its contract and procedurally tainted. To be clear, the OES certifies Local 542’s delegate election results, not UniLect. See Rules, Art. II, Section 16.
[4] We find Burkhart credible. In addition to her statements, UniLect’s conduct immediately following notice in December further suggests that had UniLect known its license had been suspended, it would have (as it did upon learning of this) immediately taken action to remedy the situation.
[5] Based on the SOS website, the same day UniLect was informed of its suspended license, it filed a Statement of Information Corporation with the California SOS to provide accurate and up-to-date information about UniLect.
[6] We also note that to the extent the protest challenges elections under the Election Supervisor’s authority before this election cycle, it is untimely. See Rules, Article XIII, Section 2(b).
[8] Although Stedronsky’s protest is dated January 25, 2026, she did not email it until January 26, 2026. Either way, her protest would is untimely.
[9] We also note that the status of UniLect’s business license has been and remains publicly available at the California Secretary of State website.
[10] We note that the Election Supervisor does not have the authority to enforce state law. See Miller, P-504-LU147-MOI (Apr. 23, 1996) (holding no jurisdiction to determine if the raffles violated state law because “[t]hat is a matter under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement and does not fall under the Election Officer’s enforcement of the rights and protections of the Rules.”) (citing Franks, P-346-LU71-MID (January 30, 1991) (declining to determine if the allegations that the raffle lottery may be illegal under North Carolina law, the Election Administrator explained, “The third basis of the protest is a possible violation of state law. I lack jurisdiction to decide this question”).
[11] Section 23304.5 states: A party that has the right to declare a contract to be voidable pursuant to Section 23304.1 may exercise that right only in a lawsuit brought by either party with respect to the contract in a court of competent jurisdiction and the rights of the parties to the contract shall not be affected by Section 23304.1 except to the extent expressly provided by a final judgment of the court, which judgment shall not be issued unless the taxpayer is allowed a reasonable opportunity to cure the voidability under Section 23305.1. If the court finds that the contract is voidable under Section 23304.1, the court shall order the contract to be rescinded. However, in no event shall the court order rescission of a taxpayer’s contract unless the taxpayer receives full restitution of the benefits provided by the taxpayer under the contract.”
[12] Sauceda alleges that UniLect’s certification of the election is derived from its contract and procedurally tainted. To be clear, the OES certifies Local 396’s delegate election results, not UniLect. See Rules, Art. II, Section 16.
[13] This protest is considered in the post-election context. See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 3(b)(3); see also Art. XIII, Section 2(f)(2).