Aldana, 2026 ESD 102
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: ALDANA, MANUEL ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 102
) Issued: June 1, 2026
Protestor. )
)
INTRODUCTION
Manual “Manny” Aldana, a candidate on the Local 396 Integrity Rank and File Slate, filed a protest against UPS and the Victor Mineros Teamsters United Slate for allegedly violating Article VII, Sections 12(d)-(f) of the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).
Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.
INVESTIGATION
Two slates were nominated and ran in Local 396’s delegate election; the Local 396 Integrity Rank and Slate, which protestor was a candidate on, and the Victor Mineros Teamsters United Slate. Both slates were campaigning in the parking lot of the UPS Compton facility on February 20, 2026.
The protestor alleges that the Rules were violated because, while both slates were campaigning in the UPS Compton facility parking lot, members of the opposing slate were allowed on the premises to use the restroom, whereas the protestor was denied such access. He states that the security guard told him that UPS company policy only permits access to UPS employees and protestor is a UPS employee (but not at that facility).
David Castro, Principal Officer of Local 396 and candidate on the Victor Mineros Teamsters United Slate, asserts that UPS merely enforced its company policy, which permitted the entry and use of the restroom inside the facility to UPS employees employed at that facility but prohibited entry and use of the restroom to any other persons. Local 396 provided the name and phone number for the security guard on duty on the day in question; however, the security guard did not return any of the investigator’s calls.
James O’Donnell, UPS Compton Supervisor, corroborated Castro’s statements explaining that pursuant to its policy any person, regardless of rank or circumstances, is prohibited from entering the premises unless they have the electronic badge that is issued only to members of the Compton UPS facility. In fact, O’Donnell stated that when he was hired as Supervisor, he himself was denied access until he got his badge. Thus, as the protestor is not employed at that facility, he was not granted access.
APPLICABLE RULES & ANALYSIS
Rule 12(a) protects members’ rights to engage in campaign activity, and the record shows that the protestor and his slate were able to campaign freely in the UPS Compton facility parking lot alongside the opposing slate, distributing literature and soliciting support without interference. There is no evidence that the protestor’s campaign activity was restricted in any way.
Article VII, Section 12(d) prohibits employers from restricting candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fundraising events, or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises. It further requires that such opportunities must be made available equally and without discrimination to all candidates and members. Id. In other words, it prohibits discriminatory restrictions on campaign opportunities. Here, both slates were afforded the same access to the parking lot and employees for campaign purposes. The protestor’s complaint concerns access to a restroom, not access to campaign opportunities, and, therefore, it does not implicate the Rules.
Article VII, Section 12(e) expressly limits candidates’ access rights to employee parking lots and affirmatively provides that nothing in the Rule entitles candidates to access to other areas of the employer’s premises. See Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(e) (“Nothing in this Subsection shall entitle any candidate or other Union member to access to any other part of premises owned, leased, operated, or used by an employer or access to a parking lot for purposes or under circumstances other than as set forth herein.”). Thus, the denial of restroom access inside the UPS Compton facility falls squarely outside the scope of the Rules’ guaranteed access.
Finally, Rule 12(f) prohibits employer discrimination in granting access to employer property that benefits one candidate over another. The evidence shows no such discrimination: both slates were equally permitted to campaign in the parking lot. The only difference in restroom access reflects a neutral distinction between employees assigned to the facility and those who are not, not a preferential treatment based on candidacy or slate affiliation. Nor is there any evidence that such access conferred a material campaign advantage.[1] Accordingly, the protestor has not demonstrated a violation of 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 102
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Manny Aldana
David Castro
John Palmer
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Kelly Hogan
[1] Protestor does not allege that any improper campaigning occurred while the employees were inside the facility using the restroom.