C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER IV—OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER A—LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS › PART 452—GENERAL STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ELECTION PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959 › Subpart I—Election Procedures; Rights of Members

29 C.F.R. § 452.110

Adequate safeguards

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In addition to the election safeguards discussed in this part, the Act contains a general mandate in section 401(c), that adequate safeguards to insure a fair election shall be provided. Such safeguards are not required to be included in the union's constitution and bylaws, but they must be observed. A labor organization's wide range of discretion regarding the conduct of elections is thus circumscribed by a general rule of fairness. For example, if one candidate is permitted to have his nickname appear on the ballot, his opponent should enjoy the same privilege.

(b) A union's failure to provide voters with adequate instructions for properly casting their ballots may violate the requirement of adequate safeguards to insure a fair election.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: William E. Brock, Iii, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Writers Guild of Am., West, Inc., 762 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
William E. Brock, Iii, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Writers Guild of Am., West, Inc., 762 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1985). “29 C.F.R. § 452.110 . The inclusion of these mechanical procedural safeguards as examples of the required safeguards suggests that the Secretary, like Congress, construed the adequate safeguards provision narrowly.”
Herman v. New York Metro Area Postal Union, 30 F. Supp. 2d 636 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “1989) (holding that where failure to meet requirements would disqualify voters, the union cannot “fail[ ] to provide instructions on how to meet such requirements”) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 452.110 (b)). Also countering Metro's argument that it had no duty to provide fuller notice of…”
Dole v. Local Union 317, 711 F. Supp. 577 (M.D. Ala. 1989). “See 29 C.F.R. § 452.110 (b) (“failure to provide voters with adequate instructions for properly casting their ballots may violate the requirement of adequate safeguards to insure a fair election”).”
Reich v. Fed'n of Catholic Teachers, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). “29 C.F.R. § 452.110 (a) (1993). The example of unfairness provided in the regulation — that the omission of a nickname constitutes an unfair act — is clearly analogous to the situation presented in this case.”
Solis v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1005, 638 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2011). “1985) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 452.110 ). “The inclusion of these mechanical procedural safeguards as examples of the required safeguards suggests that the Secretary, like Congress, construed the adequate safeguards provision narrowly.”
Chavez-DeRemer v. Prot. Serv. Officers United (D. Maryland 2025). “” 29 C.F.R. § 452.110 (a). The interpretive regulations provide examples of conduct that would violate this general mandate of fairness, such as permitting only one candidate to have his or her nickname on the ballot, or failing to provide adequate voting instructions to voters.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.