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

29 C.F.R. § 452.53

Application of qualifications for office

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

Qualifications for office which may seem reasonable on their face may not be proper if they are applied in an unreasonable manner or if they are not applied in a uniform way. An essential element of reasonableness is adequate advance notice to the membership of the precise terms of the requirement. A qualification which is not part of the constitution and bylaws or other duly enacted rules of the organization may not be the basis for denial of the right to run for office, unless required by Federal or State law. 32 Qualifications must be specific and objective. They must contain specific standards of eligibility by which any member can determine in advance whether or not he is qualified to be a candidate. For example, a constitutional provision which states that “a candidate shall not be eligible to run for office who intends to use his office as a cloak to effect purposes inimical to the scope and policies of the union” would not be a reasonable qualification within the meaning of section 401(e) because it is so general as to preclude a candidate from ascertaining whether he is eligible and would permit determinations of eligibility based on subjective judgments. Further, such a requirement is by its nature not capable of being uniformly imposed as required by section 401(e).

32Wirtz v. Local Union 559, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 61 LRRM 2618, 53 L.C. ¶ 11.044 (W.D. Ky. 1966); Hodgson v. Longshoremen's Local 1655 New Orleans Dray Clerks, 79 LRRM 2893, 67 L.C. ¶ 12,466 (E.D. La. January 5, 1972).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: Thomas Doyle v. William Brock, Sec'y, Dep't of Labor, 821 F.2d 778 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas Doyle v. William Brock, Sec'y, Dep't of Labor, 821 F.2d 778 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “of the precise terms of the requirement” as mandated by 29 C.F.R. § 452.53 (1986). In December 1984, the Secretary provided Doyle with a Statement of Reasons for not filing suit; subsequently, in February 1985, Doyle received a letter from the Secretary expanding on the…”
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× “Although that case dealt with a formal competency requirement embodied in the union’s constitution, the reasoning of the court is equally persuasive here: A second and related problem, also noted by the Secretary in 29 C.F.R. § 452.53 is the subjectivity inherent in the…”
Herman v. New York Metro Area Postal Union, 30 F. Supp. 2d 636 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 452.53 . Courts regularly cite this regulation as an important elaboration of LMRDA standards.”
Doyle v. Brock, 632 F. Supp. 256 (D.D.C. 1986). “may not be the basis for denial of the right to run for office____ [Qualifications] must contain specific standards of eligibility by which any member can determine in advance whether or not he is qualified to be a candidate.”
Donovan v. Local Union No. 120, Laborers' Int'l Union, 683 F.2d 1095 (7th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 452.53 (1981). A competency qualification suffers from the same deficiencies as the example set forth by the Secretary.”
Donovan v. CSEA Local Union 1000, Am. Fed'n of State Employees, 761 F.2d 870 (2d Cir. 1985). “They must contain specific standards of eligibility by which any member can determine in advance whether or not he is qualified to be a candidate____ Further, [a subjective] requirement is by its nature not capable of being uniformly imposed as required by section 401(e).”
Doyle v. Brock, 641 F. Supp. 223 (D.D.C. 1986). “29 C.F.R. § 452.53 (1985). The general meeting attendance requirement was published in a bylaw and anyone intending to meet it would have to attend meetings or request excuses.”
Donovan v. Local 25, Sheet Metal Workers, 613 F. Supp. 607 (E.D. Tenn. 1985). “” 29 CFR § 452.53 (1984). The term “retired,” by defendant’s own admission, is ambiguous.”
Eugene Scalia v. Liuna, Local 872 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 452.53 ; see Reich v. Local 89, Laborers’ Int’l Union of N.”
Walsh v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1970 (E.D. Va. 2022). · cites it 2× “(citing 29 C.F.R. § 452.53 (“Qualifications for office which may seem reasonable on their face may not be proper if they are applied in an unreasonable manner or if they are not applied in a uniform way.”
Brock v. Local 630 of the Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 662 F. Supp. 118 (C.D. Cal. 1987). “Further, [a subjective] requirement is by its nature not capable of being uniformly imposed as required by Section 401(e)” 29 C.F.R. Section 452.53 (1981) (emphasis added).”
Scalia v. Local 1694, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n (D. Del. 2021). “1985) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 452.53 ); see also Herman v. N.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.