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 G—Campaign Safeguards

29 C.F.R. § 452.73

Use of union funds

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

In the interest of fair union elections, section 401(g) of the Act places two limitations upon the use of labor organization funds derived from dues, assessments, or similar levy. These limitations are:

(a) No such funds may be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in an election subject to title IV, either in an election within the organization expending the funds or in any other labor organization; and

(b) No such funds may be used for issuing statements involving candidates in the election.

This section is not intended to prohibit a union from assuming the cost of distributing to the membership on an equal basis campaign literature submitted to the union by the candidates pursuant to the rights granted by section 401(c), as previously discussed, nor does it prohibit the expenditure of such funds for notices, factual statements of issues not involving candidates, and other expenses necessary for the holding of the election.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2018 · leading case: Brock v. Connecticut Union of Tel. Workers, Inc., 703 F. Supp. 202 (D. Conn. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brock v. Connecticut Union of Tel. Workers, Inc., 703 F. Supp. 202 (D. Conn. 1988). · cites it 3× “See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion of Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed February 25, 1986) at 7 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 452.73 ). Defendant, on the other hand, raises three arguments in its defense: (1) The…”
Reich v. Local 843, Bottle Beer Drivers, Warehousemen, Bottlers & Helpers, 869 F. Supp. 1142 (D.N.J. 1994). “29 C.F.R. § 452.73 (1994). Defendant responds by arguing that the Potter letter falls within the “safe harbor” provision of LMRDA § 401(g), which permits expenditure of union funds for “factual statements of issues not involving candidates”.”
Corner v. Acosta (N.D. Ill. 2018). “Corner argues that the newspaper mailing was an unlawful expenditure of union funds in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 452.73 and 29 C.F.R. § 452.74 because the incumbent candidates campaigned through the newspaper.”
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.