[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57177-57178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28015]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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