Eligibility Requirements for Candidacy for Union Office

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of Labor-Management Standards

29 CFR Part 452

RIN 1294-AA09

Eligibility Requirements for Candidacy for Union Office

AGENCY: Office of Labor-Management Standards, Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Labor-Management Standards is amending its

interpretative regulations on labor organization officer elections. The

amendment will add a reference to a ruling by the Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the reasonableness of

meeting attendance requirements set by labor organizations for

eligibility for union office. This amendment will inform the public of

a court decision that guides the Office in its enforcement actions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay H. Oshel, Chief, Division of

Interpretations and Standards, Office of Labor-Management Standards,

Office of the American Workplace, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5605, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-

7373. This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting

and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended (LMRDA) sets forth standards and

requirements for the election of labor organization officers. Section

401(e) of title IV, 29 U.S.C. 481(e), provides in part that every

member in good standing has the right to be a candidate subject ``to

reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed.''

In connection with the Department's enforcement responsibilities

under LMRDA title IV, interpretative regulations have been promulgated,

29 CFR Part 452, in order to provide the public with information as to

the Secretary's ``construction of the law which will guide him in

performing his [enforcement] duties.'' 29 CFR Sec. 452.1. Several

provisions in the interpretative regulations discuss union-imposed

qualifications on candidacy eligibility. One of these provisions, 29

CFR Sec. 452.38, deals specifically with meeting attendance

requirements and lists several factors to consider in determining

whether, under ``all the circumstances,'' a particular meeting

attendance requirement is reasonable.

On June 15, 1994, OLMS published an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments from the public on the possible

need to modify the interpretative regulations on meeting attendance

requirements in order to incorporate a ruling of the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Doyle v.

Brock, 821 F.2d 778 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In Doyle, the Secretary had

decided not to bring civil action on a member's complaint about his

union's meeting attendance requirement, even though the requirement

disqualified 97% of the members. The Secretary's position, after

reviewing the factors set forth in 29 CFR Sec. 452.38, was that since

the requirement was not on its face unreasonable (i.e., it did not

require a member to decide to become a candidate an excessively long

period before the election) and it was not difficult to meet (i.e., the

meetings were held at convenient times and locations and the union

provided liberal excuse provisions), the large impact of the

requirement was not by itself sufficient to render it unreasonable. The

district court ruled against the Secretary, Doyle v. Brock, 641 F.

Supp. 223 and 632 F. Supp. 256 (D.D.C. 1986), and the court of appeals

affirmed the lower court.

After reviewing the comments submitted on the ANPRM, the Department

published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 17, 1995 (60 FR

26388). The NPRM proposed revising 29 CFR 452.38 by replacing the

current text of footnote 25 with a brief summary of the holding in

Doyle that a meeting attendance requirement may be unreasonable solely

on the basis of its impact in rendering members ineligible.

One comment from an individual was received on the NPRM. That

comment wanted to have meeting attendance requirements banned because

they impede challenges to current union leadership. However, as stated

in the NPRM, after reviewing the comments on the ANPRM the Department

has concluded that there is not a sufficient legal basis at this time

to hold that meeting attendance requirements are per se unreasonable

under the LMRDA. Therefore, the Department is adopting the proposal as

set forth in the NPRM.

Administrative Notices

A. Executive Order 12866

The Department of Labor has determined that this proposed rule is

not a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 in that it will not (1) have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material

way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or

tribal governments or communities, (2) create a serious inconsistency

or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another

agency, (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof, or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising

out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles

set forth in Executive Order 12866.

[[Page 57178]]

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Agency Head has certified that this proposed rule will not have

a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Any regulatory revision will

only apply to labor organizations, and the Department has determined

that labor organizations regulated pursuant to the statutory authority

granted under the LMRDA do not constitute small entities. Therefore, a

regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements

for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.).

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 452

Labor unions.

Text of Proposed Rule

In consideration of the foregoing, the Department of Labor hereby

amends part 452 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 452--GENERAL STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ELECTION PROVISIONS OF

THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959

1. The authority citation for part 452 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: Secs. 401, 402, 73 Stat. 532, 534 (29 U.S.C. 481,

482); Secretary's Order No. 2-93 (58 FR 42578).

2. Footnote 25 cited at the end of Sec. 452.38(a) is revised to

read as follows:

Sec. 452.38 Meeting attendance requirements.

\25\ If a meeting attendance requirement disqualifies a large

portion of members from candidacy, that large antidemocratic effect

alone may be sufficient to render the requirement unreasonable. In

Doyle v. Brock, 821 F.2d 778 (D.C. Circuit 1987), the court held

that the impact of a meeting attendance requirement which

disqualified 97% of the union's membership from candidacy was by

itself sufficient to make the requirement unreasonable

notwithstanding any of the other factors set forth in 29 CFR

452.38(a).

Signed in Washington, DC this 7th day of November, 1995.

Charles L. Smith,

Deputy Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-28015 Filed 11-13-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-86-P