Jones, 2025 ESD 22
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: JONES, LANICA ) Protest Decision 2025 ESD 22
) Issued: December 17, 2025
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-036-112125-GP
)
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2025-2026 International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”), Lanica Jones, member of Local 455 and candidate for delegate in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Election”) filed a protest against Jovone Matthews and Joseph Chavez, employees of UPS. She alleges that her employment was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for running as delegate in the Election and for interfering in the election process in violation of the Rules.
Jim Devine of the Office of Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest. The investigation included interviews of Jones, two stewards, Donald Bruce and Chris Pender, Joseph Chavez, Security Manager at the UPS Aurora facility, and Jovone Matthew, District Labor Manager for UPS, and review and analysis of all materials submitted by the interested parties and/or witnesses.
BACKGROUND
Jones has been a UPS employee at the Aurora, CO facility since May 23, 2025. She was a hazmat clerk, safety co-chair, and a union steward for the facility. Her typical work week is Monday through Friday, but she also works most Saturdays. She stated that she has seniority. Jones has a history of filing grievances, which started well before her decision to run for delegate.
Jones stated that after she attended the TDU Convention in early November, she decided to run as a delegate in the Election. Jones told our investigator that she reviewed the Local Election Summary on the union bulletin boards about becoming a candidate. She stated that there was link on the summary about becoming a candidate. She was told to provide the Office of the Election Supervisor Official Forms 17 and 44 to confirm her eligibility. These forms were not posted on the bulletin board. On Friday, November 14, 2025, using her work computer, Jones located these two forms on the OES website (ibtvote.org) and printed them on company paper using a company printer. In total, the two forms are two pages. Jones stated that printed the forms late in the day, and she mistakenly left them in the printer. She was hoping to collect them the following morning but on the morning of the 15th, she was informed by management that Jones should not report to work and that a different employee would be working that Saturday. Jones stated that she checked the printer Monday morning, but the forms were no longer there. On Tuesday, November 18th, Jones filed a grievance with a number of allegations, including, but not limited to her being told not to report to work on the 15th. None of her allegations set forth in the grievance related to the Election.
During a meeting on November 21, 2025, Chavez confronted Jones about her conducting union business on company time with company property, which is not allowed. Bruce and Pender[1] were present representing Jones. Security Supervisor Helena Kenney also attended via Teams. Chavez told Jones that this meeting had been requested by labor management over union forms she printed from a UPS computer to a UPS printer on UPS paper during work time. Matthews confirmed these statements.
When Chavez asked Jones about the allegations, Jones stated that she removed the forms for Local 455’s delegate election from the union bulletin board on Friday, November 14, 2025, and made copies from the UPS hazmat printer because she was curious about the process. Chavez checked the bulletin board and did not observe these documents posted there. As noted above, during the investigation Jones admitted that she did not find these forms on the bulletin board but that she went on the ibtvote.org website, found the forms, and then printed them.
According to Chavez, during the meeting, Jones admitted that she was aware that she was not permitted to conduct union business on company time or with company resources but stated that she was not aware that she could not make copies of documents and that she believed her conduct was allowed. Jones claims that her termination is excessive for printed two forms. She stated that she is aware of another individual who was initially discharged for abusing time significantly but later was permitted to return after a suspension.
Chavez also questioned Jones about an email regarding an unfair labor practice (“ULP”) violation.[2] Review of this ULP shows that none of Jones’ allegations were related to the Election. During the meeting, Jones stated that she drafted the email from her home computer then sent it to her work computer because it would not send from her personal computer to the intended recipients. She denied ever sending any emails “from her work email just to the Teamsters or the NLRB,” and denied collecting evidence about the ULP charge while on company time. Jones denied using company resources for other union activity at any other time.
During the meeting, Jones stated her belief that she was being retaliated against for filing the ULP charge. During the investigation, Jones reiterated her belief that her employment was terminated because of her grievances and not because of her candidacy in the Election. Chavez disputed Jones’ assertion both during the meeting and the investigation. He told Jones that she had the right to file a charge and that he was questioning her about her activities because the allegations that she had used company time and/or resources to send emails and other union activity, prohibited activities—not in retaliation.
During the meeting, Chavez provided Jones the opportunity to provide a written statement. She declined to do so. Jones was then given the option of resigning or being taken out of service. She declined to resign and was taken out of service. She was escorted out of the facility without incident. Bruce and Pender acknowledge that Jones improperly printed the delegate forms but believe that terminating her employment was excessive. They both noted that Jones’ conduct appeared to be a minor infraction as it took a nominal amount of time to print the documents and speculated that the charges instead appear to be an excuse for terminating her employment in retaliation for filings ULPs in the past. Pender stated that he has been involved in theft of time complaints before but that most of these have involved a person remaining on break time for longer period of time than permitted. He stated that typically, the punishment he has seen is suspension. He stated that normally an individual is not terminated unless that person is a frequent violator.
On November 24, 2025, Anthony Moore, Division Manager for UPS sent Jones a letter from UPS confirming that her employment was terminated “for just cause per the provisions of Article 17 (a) – Dishonesty; theft of company time and company property, the most recent occurrences being on November 14, 2025. This is considered a dishonest act. Therefore, your termination is effective immediately.” Jones subsequently filed a grievance related to her termination of employment. Her first hearing occurred on December 2nd and her second hearing occurred on December 15th.
During the investigation, Chavez acknowledged that Jones has filed a number of grievances, noting she has the right to do so. He reiterated that her termination had nothing to do with her grievances or the Election. He further stated that Jones’ termination was not taken to interfere with the election process but strictly the result of her conducting union business on company time and with company resources.[3] Chavez has been involved with theft of time allegations before but none similar to the facts here. Matthews also stated that the termination of Jones’ employment was the result of her theft of time and use of company resources to conduct union business and not retaliation for her previously filed grievances or candidacy as delegate in the Election.
ANALYSIS
Article VII, Section 12(a) describes activity protected by the Rules as follows:
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…
Article VII, Section 12(g) states:
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.
To establish a violation of this section, “the evidence must demonstrate that 1) the alleged victim engaged in activity protected by the Rules, 2) the charged party took adverse action against the alleged victim, and 3) the protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action.” Halstead, 2017 ESD 366 (Jan. 13, 2017) (citing Bundrant, 2005 ESD 19 at 10 (October 25, 2005), aff’d, 05 EAM 4 (November 15, 2005) (quoting Cooper, 2005 ESD 8 (September 2, 2005)). The protestor must show that conduct protected by the Rules was a motivating factor in the adverse decision or conduct in dispute. The Election Supervisor will not find retaliation if he concludes that the company would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protestor’s protected conduct. Id. (citing Gilmartin, P32 (Jan. 5, 1996), aff’d, 95 EAM 75; Leal, P51 (Oct. 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 30; Wsol, P95 (Sept. 20, 1995), aff’d, 95 EAM 17).
For the purpose of our analysis here, we accept that UPS was aware of Jones’ candidacy or, at least, her intent to run for delegate based on the specific forms Jones printed that were provided to UPS management and gave rise to the termination of her employment. Jones has the right to run as a candidate for delegate, a right that the union and employers are prohibited from interfering with. See Rules, Art. VII, Section 12(a); see also Virtue, et al., 2007 ESD 403 (July 9, 2007).
However, despite Jones’ claims that her discharge was motivated by her delegate candidacy, she has presented no evidence to support this speculative and conclusory allegation,[4] and we have not discovered any. Jones admitted that she understood that she was not permitted to conduct union business on company time. However, the evidence shows that despite this, she used a company computer to search the ibtvote.org website for forms related to her candidacy for delegate in the Election and print them. This constitutes union business—not company business. The evidence shows that she was discharged not because of her candidacy but because she conducted union business on company time with company resources. UPS expressly denied that Jones’ candidacy was a motivating factor, and our investigation has revealed no evidence that UPS opposes Jones or any candidate or campaign Jones supports, or favors any other candidates or slate of candidates. See Bucalo, 2006 ESD 166 (April 20, 2006) (denying the protest because there was no direct evidence presented or discovered that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the decision to discharge and the employer expressly denied such claims); see Guinan, P-1022-LU986-CLA (Jan. 2, 1992) (denying protest absent evidence that the employer’s decision to terminate was motivated, even in part, by a hostility to his campaign activity or a desire to retaliate against him for conduct protected by the Rules). Even Jones herself stated that she does not believe that her candidacy in the Election was a motivating factor in this decision. Additionally, this is not the first time that UPS has discharged an employee because of misconduct including, but not limited to, theft of time. See e.g., Halstead, 2017 ESD 366 (Jan. 13, 2017) (noting that one of the protestors had previously been terminated by UPS for theft of time). Other employers have also terminated employees for similar violations. See e.g., Local 728 Unity Slate, 2001 EAD 369 (May 16, 2001) (noting that the charged party had previously discharged employees for similar conduct).
The evidence shows that UPS discharged Jones because she used company resources to conduct union business on company time—facts she does not dispute. Simply put, there is no evidence that UPS was motivated to terminate Jones’ employment, even in part, by her candidacy.[5]
For these reasons 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
2025 ESD 22
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Javone Matthews
Jose Chavez
Chris Pender
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Jim Devine
Kelly Hogan
[1] Pender arrived later and only attended part of the meeting. Once Pender arrived, he took over Jones’ representation and Bruce took notes. Bruce’s statements during the investigation were consistent with his notes from the meeting drafted contemporaneously therewith.
[2] Review of this email shows that Jones sent it on November 18, 2025.
[3] Chavez’s statements during this investigation were consistent with his notes from the November 21, 2025, drafted contemporaneously therewith.
[4] We note that Jones’ statements during the November 21st meeting and this investigation were inconsistent. She initially stated that she found the subject forms on bulletin boards and merely copied them. She later admitted that this was not true but that she had, in fact, went on the ibtvote.org website, found the forms, and printed them. It appears that Jones may have used this as an excuse as to why she believed this conduct was permissible when her conduct suggests that she knew otherwise. Apparently recognizing that using a company computer to search for the OES website and relevant forms related to the Election—nothing to do with company business—then printing those materials with company printer and paper was impermissible, she told a story to try to minimize her infraction.
[5] It is not the role of the Election Supervisor to decide if her termination was warranted based on her actions because we determine that UPS “rightly or wrongly,” discharged Jones because she conducted union business with company resources not because of any of her activity protected by the Rules. Bucalo, 2006 ESD 166 (April 20, 2006).