Home / Recent Changes / Castro & Aguilar, 2026 ESD 94

Castro & Aguilar, 2026 ESD 94

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: DAVID, CASTRO ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 94

and HANNIBAL AGUILAR )

) Issued: May 27, 2026

)

Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-050-012026 and P-069-020626

)

)

INTRODUCTION

David Castro, President of Local 396 and candidate on the Victor Mineros Teamsters United Slate, filed a protest objecting to the removal of Oscar Coleman, a candidate nominated for delegate on the Local 396 Integrity Rank and File Slate, and Paulo Gomez, an independent candidate nominated for alternate delegate, from the ballot allegedly in violation of the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).

Hannibal Aguilar, candidate on the Local 396 Integrity Rank and File Slate, subsequently filed a protest against Local 396 for posting an inaccurate list of all nominated candidates for delegate and alternate delegate, intimidation, and misleading the membership by including Coleman. We consolidated these protests as they arise out of the same or similar facts.

Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.

BACKGROUND

Local 396 is entitled to elect seventeen (17) delegates and (17) alternate delegates. At the nomination meeting on January 10, 2026, 34 candidates were nominated for delegate and 19 candidates were nominated for alternate delegate. Following the nomination meeting, one of the candidates who was nominated as delegate on the Local 396 Integrity Rank and File Slate, Oscar Coleman, and an independent candidate nominated for alternate delegate, Paulo Gomez, voluntarily withdrew as candidates and were not included on the ballot.

Coleman provided a written request to withdraw as delegate candidate on January 13, 2026. Gomez provided a written request to withdraw as an alternate delegate candidate via text on January 16, 2026. Following these written requests, the investigator spoke to both Coleman and Mr. Gomez via telephone and confirmed that each candidate was withdrawing voluntarily and free from influence by any third party. The ballots had not yet been printed at the time either candidate voluntarily withdrew.

Local 396 then posted a list of nominated candidates including Coleman and Gomez, who had already withdrawn. Aguilar filed his protest on Friday, February 6, 2026. The OES sent an acknowledgement letter to Aguilar and Local 396 notifying them of the protest and assigning an investigator on Monday, February 9, 2026. That same day, Local 396 posted a corrected nomination list. On February 10, 2026, ballots were mailed to members. The ballots were correct and excluded Coleman and Gomez.

Local 396’s election was held on March 11, 2026. A total of 1,681 ballots were cast; 1,574 valid ballots were counted, 0 ballots were totally void; and 105 unresolved challenged ballots. The winning delegate candidate with the least number of votes received 1,213 votes. The losing delegate candidate with the greatest number of votes received 247 votes, making the margin in the delegate election 966. That same margin in the alternate delegate election was 951. Factoring in the unresolved ballots and assuming that all of those votes went to the Local 396 Integrity Rank and File Slate candidates who received the most votes, the delegate election margin was 861 and the alternate delegate election was 846.

APPLICABLE RULES & ANALYSIS

These protests are analyzed in the post-election context. We may remedy a Rules violation in a post-election context only if the conduct may have affected the outcome of the election. Teamsters United, 2017 ESD 384 (Feb. 15, 2017).

P-050

Castro alleges that because Coleman and Gomez were nominated, seconded, and accepted their nomination prior to voluntarily withdrawing as candidates, they should not have been removed from the ballot under Article VIII, Section 2(a). Article VIII, Section 2(a) states, “Once a candidate declares his/her intent to run as a member of a slate, he/she may not retract such declaration.” (emphasis added). Castro asks us to interpret this rule to mean that candidates are not permitted to voluntarily withdraw from a slate or as a candidate following the nomination meeting but before the ballot is printed. Castro urges an interpretation of this provision that would prohibit candidates from voluntarily withdrawing from the election after the nomination meeting but before ballot printing, effectively requiring them to remain on the ballot regardless of their wishes. We reject that interpretation, finding it to be inconsistent with the purpose of the Rules and precedent.

As explained in Frank Halstead, 2010 ESD 11 (Aug. 2, 2010), and consistent with the definition of “candidate” in the Rules, the prohibition on retracting a slate declaration applies only during the slate‑formation process at the candidates meeting. The rule is designed to maintain the stability and integrity of slate formation at that specific stage of the election process but nothing in Article VIII, Section 2(a) prevents a candidate from voluntarily withdrawing from the election altogether after the conclusion of the candidates meeting. To interpret the Rules as the protestor suggests would lead to the unreasonable result of forcing individuals to stand for election against their will, which is inconsistent with both the purpose of the Rules and established precedent.

Here, both Coleman and Gomez withdrew their candidacies after the candidates meeting and before ballot printing. Their withdrawals were confirmed to be voluntary and free from improper influence. Under these circumstances, their removal from the ballot was proper.

Accordingly, we find that no violation of the Rules has been established and DENY this protest.

P-069

Article II, Section (6)(a) provides:

As soon as possible but in no event later than five (5) days following the nomination meeting(s), the Local Union Secretary-Treasurer shall post on all Union bulletin boards a list of all nominated candidates, by name (and by slate affiliation, if known at the time)…

The nomination list initially posted by Local 396 included Coleman and Gomez, both of whom had already voluntarily withdrawn their candidacies as discussed above. Thus, the posted list was not accurate. However, following the filing of this protest, the local promptly corrected the error and posted an accurate nomination list. This prompt corrective action was consistent with the explanation provided by the local and, as discussed further below, there is no evidence that the inaccurate posting was intentional, undertaken for an improper purpose, or affected the outcome of the election. Accordingly, this aspect of Protest P-069 is deemed RESOLVED.

Aguilar further alleges that the local intentionally included Coleman on the nomination list to intimidate him and that the inaccurate list caused confusion among members about members on the slate, thereby interfering with their ability to make informed voting decisions undermining the integrity of the election. The local denies these allegations, explaining that it included the withdrawn candidates on the posted list while awaiting a decision from the Election Supervisor on Protest P-050. While this explanation does not excuse the posting of an inaccurate list, it provides a reasonable, non-nefarious basis for the error. Importantly, the ballots for the Local 396 delegate election, mailed on February 10, 2026, accurately reflected the members of the Local 396 Integrity Rank and File Slate and did not include the withdrawn candidates. Aguilar has presented no evidence that the temporary posting of an inaccurate nomination list resulted in confusion that affected the election or otherwise interfered with members’ voting rights.

Accordingly, there is no evidence to support Aguilar’s claims of intentional misconduct or election interference, and this aspect of Protest P-069 is therefore DENIED.

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 94

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

David Castro

davrobcas@yahoo.com
davidcastro@local396.net

Victor Mineros

victormineros@local396.net

Hannibal Aguilar

hannizune@gmail.com

John Palmer