Francis & Fabian, 2026 ESD 121
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
For the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
FRANCIS, DESHAUN, ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 121
FABIAN, FLO ) Issued: August 25, 2026
Protestors. ) OES Case No. P-113-030526; P-116-030926
_____________________ )
INTRODUCTION
DeShaun Francis, a candidate for delegate on the Team 150 Power Slate in Local 150’s delegate election, filed a protest against Freddy Lopez, a candidate for delegate on the Local 150 Members Union Slate for campaigning in a union meeting hall in violation of the 2025–2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) (P-113-030526, “P-113”).
Flo Fabian, supporter of the Team 150 Power Slate, filed a protest against Jill-Marie Smith and Bobby Aperocho for campaigning in support of the Local 150 Members Union Slate at Costco without permission disrupting employees who were on the clock and for leaving campaign flyers upstairs. (P-116-030926, “P-116”).
Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated these protests.
BACKGROUND
P-113
Francis alleges that on March 4, 2026, at approximately 8:30 p.m., immediately after the Local 150 general membership meeting adjourned, he, Lopez, and a UPS member were standing and talking inside the union meeting hall where the membership meeting had just taken place. While the three were speaking, Lopez handed the UPS member a campaign sticker for the Local 150 Members Union Slate. Francis states that he did not see Lopez (or any other members) hand out any other campaign stickers inside the meeting hall. Members were still present inside the meeting hall following the adjournment of the meeting. Francis told Lopez that he could not campaign inside the hall. Lopez responded, “I can do it, but you can’t.” Secretary Treasurer of Local 150, Dale Wentz, a candidate on the Team 150 Power Slate, stated that Local 150 does not have a past practice or policy allowing campaign activity inside the union hall and that such conduct is prohibited. We have no evidence to the contrary.
Lopez admitted that he handed the sticker to the UPS member inside the hall and that he told Francis that he could do it, but Francis could not. He denied knowing that such conduct violated the Rules.
P-116
Fabian states that she was notified by the General Manager at Costco Rancho Cordova that around 12:30 in the afternoon, Smith and Aperocho were distributing campaign literature in support of the Local 150 Members Union Slate inside the warehouse without prior notice to, or permission from, management in violation of the Rules as there is no pre-existing right to campaign inside the warehouse. Mike Marget, Manager at Costco, confirmed that campaigning inside the warehouse is prohibited.
Robert Ferguson, the General Manager at Costco, confirmed that Smith and Aperocho were campaigning in the warehouse. According to Ferguson, when he confronted Smith and Aperocho, they acknowledged that they were campaigning and speaking with people about the election, but only after they clocked out. Ferguson told them that they needed permission from management to be present on the premises as they were not employees. He did not expressly instruct them to leave (as protestor alleges); however, he stated that after their interaction, Smith and Aperocho left.
Smith and Aperocho do not dispute that they distributed campaign literature in the Costco warehouse without speaking to management or obtaining permission to do so but that they misunderstood the Rules. Freddy Lopez, a candidate and spokesperson for the Local 150 Members Union Slate acknowledged to the investigator that Smith and Aperocho admitted to him that they had campaigned inside the warehouse but believed that such conduct was permitted. Specifically, they told Lopez that since the slate was permitted to campaign in the parking lot outside the premises, they thought they could do the same inside so long as employees they spoke with were off the clock. Lopez stated that he informed the Smith and Aperocho that such conduct was a violation of the Rules.
Local 150’s delegate election was March 31, 2026. Francis and all other candidates on the Team 150 Power Slate won the election.
ANALYSIS
Article 12(a) guarantees the right of all IBT members to participate in campaign activities. Specifically, it provides, in pertinent part:
All 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. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to distribute campaign literature (and otherwise to solicit support for a member's candidacy) outside a meeting hall before, during and after a Union meeting, regardless of Union policy, rule or practice.
Pursuant to Article VII, Section 12(d):
No restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to use employer or Union bulletin boards for campaign publicity. Similarly, no restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature, conduct campaign rallies, hold fund-raising events, or engage in similar activities on employer or Union premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a non-discriminatory basis.
To find such a past practice, “the evidence must show knowledge and toleration on the part of the employer. Evidence of unauthorized and unknown incidents is insufficient.” Vasquez, 2021 ESD 104 (Apr. 9, 2021) (citing McDonald, P-1014 (October 15, 1996); Batham, 1996 EAM 225 (August 16, 1996) (requiring “concrete evidence that the employer representatives at the site knew about, and permitted,” the campaign activity alleged to constitute a past practice)).
The material facts of these protests are undisputed. Lopez does not dispute handing the campaign sticker to the UPS member in the union meeting hall immediately following the meeting. Campaigning inside a union hall is only permitted where a preexisting right to engage in such activity exists. See Thornsberry, 2000 EAD 48 (Nov. 17, 2000), aff’d 00 EAM 12 (KC) (Dec. 12, 2000) (collecting cases); Saxton, 2011 EAD 148 (Feb. 8, 2001) (distribution of campaign buttons in the union hall before meeting violated the Rules absent past practice) (citing Stefanski, P505 (March 6, 1996). No such right exists at Local 150’s union hall, therefore, Lopez’s conduct violated the Rules.
Similarly, there is no dispute that Smith and Aperocho campaigned inside the warehouse at Costco. “Where a past practice exists, Article VII, Section 12(d) declares that ‘[n]o restrictions shall be placed upon candidates’ or members’ preexisting rights to solicit support, distribute leaflets or literature . . . or engage in similar activities on employer . . . premises. Such facilities and opportunities shall be made available to all candidates and members on a non-discriminatory basis.’” Morales & Medina, 2021 ESD 77 (March 10, 2021) (alterations in original). “To find such a past practice, ‘the evidence must show knowledge and toleration on the part of the employer. Evidence of unauthorized and unknown incidents is insufficient.’” Id. Here, the evidence shows that Smith and Aperocho did not have permission to enter the warehouse and no pre-existing right to campaign there exists.
Accordingly, we find that Lopez, Smith and Aperocho violated the Rules and GRANT these protests.
REMEDY
When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.[1] The Election Supervisor orders the following:
Lopez, Smith and Aperocho are hereby ordered to cease and desist from any further conduct that interferes with any rights guaranteed under the Rules.
Further, to remedy the violations found here and inform the membership of the requirements of the Rules, Local 150 is ordered to post the attached notice on all bulletin board(s) under its jurisdiction at (1) Local Union 150’s union hall and (2) Costco Rancho Cordova, and to post the notice prominently on the homepage of Local Union 150's website in no less than 12-point font. Such postings shall be completed within two (2) business days of the issuance of this decision and shall remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days. The purpose of this remedy is remedial in nature and is intended to inform members that the conduct found herein violates the Rules.
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.
Timothy S. Hillman
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
2026 ESD 121
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Deshaun Francis
Flo Fabian
Bobby Aperocho
Jill-Marie Smith
Freddy Lopez
Richard Hooker
John Palmer
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Deborah Schaaf
Kelly Hogan
NOTICE TO LOCAL UNION 150 MEMBERS PER ORDER OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
The Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) protect the right of IBT members to campaign and support candidates. However, campaigning inside a union hall or on employer premises is permitted only where there is a demonstrated pre-existing right, past practice, or other access permitted under the Rules on a non-discriminatory basis. The Election Supervisor has determined that Freddy Lopez, Jill-Marie Smith, and Bobby Aperocho violated the Rules. Specifically, the Election Supervisor found that:
- Freddy Lopez campaigned inside Local Union 150’s union meeting hall by distributing campaign material following a membership meeting, even though there was no pre-existing right or past practice permitting campaigning inside the union hall; and
- Jill-Marie Smith and Bobby Aperocho campaigned inside the Costco Rancho Cordova warehouse by distributing campaign literature and soliciting support, even though they had neither permission from management nor any pre-existing right to campaign inside the employer’s facility.
The Election Supervisor will not tolerate such violations of the Rules. Accordingly, the Election Supervisor has ordered Freddy Lopez, Jill-Marie Smith, and Bobby Aperocho to cease and desist from further violations of the Rules and that this notice be posted for 30 days to provide guidance on the application of the Rules and that such conduct violates the Rules in an effort to deter future similar violations.
Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
ELECTION SUPERVISOR
TELEPHONE: 844-428-8683
electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS THAT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR THIRTY (30) CONSECUTIVE DAYS, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED OR DEFACED IN ANY MANNER, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
[1] Although these protests are analyzed in the post-election context and we find that the violations did not affect the outcome of the election since Francis and all candidates on his slate won the election, taking into consideration the fact that respondents do not dispute their conduct, which violated the Rules, and to provide guidance on the application of the Rules including notice that such conduct violates the Rules, in an effort to deter future similar violations, we grant these protests and issue a remedy under these circumstances. Based on the facts and circumstances here we distinguish cases where no remedy was deemed appropriate. See e.g., Wood, 2011 ESD 210 (April 14, 2011) (denying protest in post-election context where the protestor won the election, but where the charged party denied knowledge of the alleged violation and the individual responsible was not identified).