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 F—Nominations for Office

29 C.F.R. § 452.57

Procedures for nomination

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

(a) Since the Act does not prescribe particular procedures for the nomination of candidates, the labor organization is free to employ any method that will provide a reasonable opportunity for making nominations. There are various methods which, if properly and fairly employed, would be considered reasonable under the Act. For example, nominations may be by petition, or from the floor at a nomination meeting.

(b) Whether a particular procedure is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Act is a question which will depend upon the particular facts in each case. While a particular procedure may not on its face violate the requirements of the Act, its application in a given instance may make nomination so difficult as to deny the members a reasonable opportunity to nominate.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1984–2018 · leading case: Robert Reich, Sec'y of Labor United States Dep't of Labor v. Local 89, Laborers' Int'l Union of North Am., Afl-Cio, 36 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robert Reich, Sec'y of Labor United States Dep't of Labor v. Local 89, Laborers' Int'l Union of North Am., Afl-Cio, 36 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 452.57 (emphasis added). Additionally, the “Qualifications for candidacy” reads, in relevant part: 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.”
Acosta v. Local 101, Transp. Workers Union of Am. Afl-Cio, 339 F. Supp. 3d 80 (E.D.N.Y 2018). “The Secretary makes two primary arguments regarding the application of the letter of acceptance rule: (1) Marquis's disqualification was unreasonable because it "served no important union purpose nor was it related to the qualifications to serve as union [p]resident," and (2)…”
Donovan v. CSEA Local Union 1000, Am. Fed'n of State Employees, 761 F.2d 870 (2d Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 452.57 . 2 But any petition requirement must still be tested for reasonableness.”
Donovan v. Chicago Truck Drivers , Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union, 601 F. Supp. 352 (N.D. Ill. 1984). “See 29 C.F.R. § 452.57 . A petition requirement ensures that candidates can marshal minimal support, thereby eliminating fringe candidates.”
Herman v. Local 50, Serv. Employees Intern. Union, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (E.D. Mo. 2001). “29 C.F.R. § 452.57 (b). Petition requirements can be reasonable if they serve the legitimate union purpose of ensuring that candidates can marshal minimal support.”
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.