Baker, 2026 ESD 78
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: DANETTE BAKER ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 78
) Issued: May 11, 2026
) OES Case No. P-145-041926
)
INTRODUCTION
Danette Baker, candidate on the Big Brown Slate, filed a protest against Lorraine Gonzales-Lopez, a member of Local 87 and chief steward at the time of the alleged violation,[1] and the Horsmen slate. Baker alleges that Gonzales-Lopez sent an email to Teamsters members at Panama-Buena Vista Unified School District from her employer email address with employer resources in violation of the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).
Deborah Schaaf was assigned to investigate this protest. As part of her investigation she interviewed protestor, Gonzales-Lopez, Local 87 principal officer John Moralez, and an individual who received the alleged email from Gonzales-Lopez who asked not to be identified and declined to participate in the investigation. It also involved review of the subject bargaining agreement and policy.
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. The ballot count was on April 18, 2026. A total of 86 valid ballots were counted, with 4 unresolved challenged ballots. The results were as follows:
|
DELEGATE |
VOTES |
|
John Morales |
50 |
|
AJ Barrera |
36 |
|
ALTERNATE |
|
|
Henry Garza |
45 |
|
Danette Baker |
36 |
Baker stated that at 8:40 pm on April 18, 2026, after the ballot count, she was notified by an individual who had received an email from Gonzales-Lopez prior to the election campaigning for the Horsemen Slate. This email was sent to all members employed with the Panama-Buena Vista Unified School District. “Post-election protests must concern conduct that occurred on or after election day. Post-election protests that allege pre-election conduct will be denied as untimely.” Bucalo, 2016 ESD 196 (May 4, 2016). However, Baker stated that she was not aware of this email prior to being notified that night, and she promptly filed the instant protest the following day. We credit these statements. Baker does not work in that school district and was not included on the distribution list. She would not know about this email unless and until someone notified her of it. Accordingly, although the conduct giving rise to the protest occurred on April 2, 2026, we find that Baker was reasonably unaware of the violation. Additionally, the subject email was sent to 257 members, which is nearly three times the number of votes counted. See Spears, 2021 EAM 12 (re: ESD 67) (“The Election Supervisor can consider protests on their merits even though they are untimely if protestors are reasonably unaware that a Rules violation has occurred or when the nature of the violation is serious.”) (citing Feeley, P810 (July 1, 1996) (protest decided on the merits even though filed 30 days after violation occurred due to the seriousness of the conduct).
Generally, 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(a).
Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) declares that “[n]o employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object, or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. … These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer and include contributions or use of employer stationery, equipment, facilities, and personnel.”
Article VII, Section 12(d) provides the following, in part: “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.”
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.”
We reviewed a copy of the subject email. On April 2, 2026, Gonzales-Lopez sent an email to 257 members employed by the school district. She wrote:
I wanted to let you all know that last week you would have received a new voting ballot from the IBT/Teamsters office.
Please send in your vote in the already stamped envelope.
I attached a copy of the letter, so that you would know what it looks like.
Have a great day
Gonzales-Lopez attached a photograph of the Notice of Election and Mail Ballot Voting Instructions and the Official Ballot for the Election of Convention Delegates and Alternate Delegates Teamsters Local Union 87 with her vote for the Horsemen Slate, Moralez and Garza filled in.
Gonzales-Lopez confirmed that she sent this email. She stated that she wanted to remind members to vote and at the last minute, she decided to include a picture of the ballot despite the fact that she had already voted. Just before mailing back her ballot with her vote, she unfolded it, took a picture and included it in her email. This constitutes campaigning for the Horsemen slate. See Scott, 2001 EAD 397 (June 27, 2026) (“‘Campaigning’ has been defined as ‘advocacy for the nomination, election or defeat of a candidate.’”) (citing Caffrey, P47 (October 19, 1995)). There is no evidence that either candidate on the Horsemen Slate knew of or was involved in any way in the planning, execution, or sending of this email. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Gonzales-Lopez intended to merely remind members to vote with a copy of the mailer but the only copy she had, she had already voted on. During the investigation she explained that she thought this was permissible. She also denied sending the email during working hours.
Gonzales-Lopez has been employed by the Panama Buena Vista School District since 2006 and became a steward in 2016. Since becoming a steward, Gonzales-Lopez has used employer-generated emails for work, Union and personal matters, which is permitted, and even required by, the Panama Buena Vista School District. See e.g., Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Panama Buena Vista Union School District and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 87, Article 5(B) (“Teamsters shall have the right to use without charge…the use of the employee mailboxes and other District means of communication for the posting or transmission of information or notices concerning Teamster matters. Use of proprietary electronic means of communication shall be subject to terms of the District Acceptable Use Policy.”). The District Acceptable Use Policy does not prohibit the use of employer emails for personal use or campaigning.
Gonzales-Lopez stated that during her time as a steward she compiled a list of email addresses of members for her to use to communicate with them in her role as shop steward. “Email addresses compiled by a union officer or agent in the course of official communication with members are a union asset and may not be used by the individual for campaign purposes unless the addresses are made available on equal terms to any requesting candidate.” Zajac, 2011 ESD 169 (Mar. 20, 2011) (quoting Advisory on Rights of Candidates to Distribute Campaign Literature to Members via Email at 1-2 (January 7, 2011)[2] (emphasis added)). Accordingly, this email list Gonzales-Lopez compiled as shop steward with employee members is a “Covered List” under the Advisory on Rights of Candidates to Distribute Campaign Literature to Members Using IBT International Union and Local Union Email Lists (Oct. 31, 2025). However, using the list for campaign purposes is not prohibited if “…the addresses are made available on equal terms to any requesting candidate or member.” Here, any member or slate could have obtained access to the list by requesting it from the local union. See LUEP, Section 12(e).
We find that Gonzales-Lopez had the right under Article VII, Section 12(a) to support or oppose any candidate and to aid or campaign for any candidate. We further find that she had a pre-existing right to use her employer-provided email address to communicate her support for candidates in the election. See Ferguson, 2011 ESD 132 (Feb. 22, 2011) (denying protest explaining “[o]ur inquiry focuses on whether a pre-existing right exists to use employer-provided email for personal purposes. The City’s policy expressly permits use of email on a de minimis basis that does not interfere with City operations or employee productivity. We find that Scott’s email did not violate the limits set forth in City policy and therefore did not violate the Rules.”). We find that the email list she used was not an improper contribution in violation of the Rules because it was a list she compiled from email addresses that were equally available to all members on a non-discriminatory basis. We find Smith and Teamsters United, 2016 ESD 209 (May 9, 2016) instructive here. In Smith and Teamsters United, 2016 ESD 209 (May 9, 2016), the employee’s use of employer-provided email distribution list that she had access to due to her role as supervisor but rank and file members did not have access, constituted impermissible use of an employer-provided resource to campaign because the resource was not available to members on a non-discriminatory basis. In contrast to the restricted access email distribution list that was not available for all members to use on a non-discriminatory basis, here, all members had the ability to use their email addresses to send individual email messages to co-workers that expressed their views on candidates and slates.
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 78
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Danette Baker
Lorraine Gonzales-Lopez
John Moralez
Horsemen Slate
Richard Hooker
John Palmer
James L. Donovan Jr.
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.)
Paul Dever
Deborah Schaaf
Kelly Hogan
[1] Gonzales-Lopez is no longer an active Teamster member as she accepted a job in management at the School District.
[2] The 2011 advisory is substantially similar to the Advisory on Rights of Candidates to Distribute Campaign Literature to Members Using IBT International Union and Local Union Email Lists (Oct. 31, 2025) and includes in the definition of “Covered List” as “Email addresses compiled by a union officer or agent in the court of official communication with members are a union asset and may not be used by the individual for campaign purposes unless the addresses are made available on equal terms to any requesting candidate.”