Home / Recent Changes / Baker, 2026 ESD 90

Baker, 2026 ESD 90

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: DANETTE BAKER ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 90

)

) Issued: May 27, 2026

)

) OES Case No. P-090-022326

Protestor. )

)

INTRODUCTION

Danette Baker, candidate on the Big Brown Slate, filed a protest against Josh Canales, a member of Local 87 and shop steward, and the Horsemen Slate. Baker alleges that Canales sent a text message to Teamsters members employed with UPS in support of the Horsemen Slate and not Baker or her slate because she sides with management.

Deborah Schaaf was assigned to investigate this protest.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

Local 87 is entitled to send one delegate and one alternate delegate to the convention. Baker was a candidate for alternate delegate and AJ Barrera III was a candidate for delegate on the Big Brown Slate. John Moralez was a candidate for delegate and Henry Garza was a candidate for alternate delegate on the Horsemen slate.

Baker alleges that Canales sent a text to twelve UPS employees with a picture of his ballot showing that he voted for the Horsemen slate and encouraging them not to vote for her because she sides with management, which Baker alleges is unethical and untrue.

Review of the text message at issue confirms that Canales sent a text with a photograph of the Local 87 ballot package, including his ballot showing that he voted for the Horsemen Slate. He wrote, “Vote Horsemen slate John Morales, and Henry Garza unless you want someone that sides with management to represent us then vote Big Brown slate Danette Baker.”

Canales confirmed that he sent this text in support of the Horsemen Slate in a group text that includes other stewards at UPS from his personal cell phone. He said that although they sometimes discuss work in the group chat, they also talk about personal matters and other matters not related to work of the union. Canales denied creating the group chat using a union list of phone numbers. He said that he sent the message to other employees at UPS whose phone numbers he has personally collected over the years. Moralez, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 87 confirmed that the local does not have such a list. Canales stated that he was off work and at home when he sent the text message.

Baker does not cite to any specific rule in the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) she claims Canales violated.

Under Article VII, Section 12(a), “[a]ll 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.” It also grants “the reciprocal right to hear or otherwise receive such campaign advocacy.” Although the OES protects the freedom to exercise political rights, it does not regulate the content of campaign material. Yolland, P660 (April 3, 1996). The fact that campaign statements are false or even defamatory does not remove them from the protection of the Rules. Braxton, P304 (May 21, 1991); Hoffa 2006, 2005 ESD 25 (November 8, 2005); Jackson & Trupiano, 2006 ESD 24 (April 17, 2006); Reyes, 2010 ESD 14 (August 4, 2010).

Statements similar to the ones Baker alleges Canales made here —even when accompanied by aggressive or heightened conduct (none of which is alleged here)—does not constitute a violation of the Rules. See e.g., Galvan, 2011 ESD 28 (Apr. 27, 2011) (contentious banter, accusations of Galvan being a quitter because he previously worked for the local, and loud instructions to members not to vote for the Galvan slate did not violate the Rules). Thus, even assuming arguendo that the statements Canales made about Baker were false, or even defamatory, the Rules do not permit us to regulate or censor such campaign speech and her protest must be denied. See Kenny, 2006 ESD 190 (May 17, 2006) (the OES does not regulate the content of campaign material, “even statements that are false or defamatory.”) (citing Sandford, 2006 ESD 142 (April 3, 2006) (collecting cases)).

Additionally, to the extent the protestor alleges that Canales’s text constituted an improper use of union resources, we find no violation. The evidence shows that Canales used his personal cellphone and contacted members whose phone numbers he personally obtained independently over time, not through any union-provided list or resource. There is no evidence that union assets, funds, facilities, or official channels were used to distribute the message. Rather, the campaign activity protected under the Rules.

Accordingly, we 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 90

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

Danette Baker

danettebaker@hotmail.com

Josh Canales

joshuacanales@hotmail.com

John Moralez

jmoralez@teamsterslocal87.org

Richard Hooker