[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
