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 E—Candidacy for Office; Reasonable Qualifications
It is recognized that labor organizations may have a legitimate institutional interest in prescribing minimum standards for candidacy and officeholding in the organization. On the other hand, a dominant purpose of the Act is to ensure the right of members to participate fully in governing their union and to make its officers responsive to the members. A basic assumption underlying the concept of “free and democratic elections,” is that voters will exercise common sense and good judgment in casting their ballots. In union elections as in political elections, the good judgment of the members in casting their votes should be the primary determinant of whether a candidate is qualified to hold office. Therefore, restrictions placed on the right of members to be candidates must be closely scrutinized to determine whether they serve union purposes of such importance, in terms of protecting the union as an institution, as to justify subordinating the right of the individual member to seek office and the interest of the membership in a free, democratic choice of leaders.
Notes of Decisions
Donovan v. CSEA Local Union 1000, Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, 594 F. Supp. 188 (N.D.N.Y. 1984).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 452.35 . Although the nomination procedures challenged here imposed no express qualification requirements, the thrust of the Secretary’s attack is that the nominating committee substituted its judgment for that of individual union members.”
Donovan v. Local Union No. 120, Laborers' Int'l Union, 683 F.2d 1095 (7th Cir. 1982).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 452.35 (1981). We conclude that the requirement of competency, lacking an objective standard, permits arbitrary and subjective barring of candidates by the Judges of Election.”
Marshall v. Illinois Educ. Ass'n, 511 F. Supp. 144 (C.D. Ill. 1981).
“However, the Department stated that a dominant purpose of the Act is to ensure the right of members to participate fully in governing their union and to make its officers responsive to the members.”
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.