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. § 452.78

Expenditures by employers

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

(a) As an additional safeguard, section 401(g) provides that no money of an employer is to be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in an election subject to the provisions of title IV. This includes indirect as well as direct expenditures. Thus, for example, campaigning by union stewards on company time with the approval of the employer would violate section 401(g) unless it can be shown that they are on legitimate work assignments, and that their campaign activities are only incidental to the performance of their assigned task and do not interfere with its performance. This prohibition against the use of employer money includes any costs incurred by an employer, or anything of value contributed by an employer, in order to support the candidacy of any individual in an election. It would not, however, extend to ordinary business practices which result in conferring a benefit, such as, for example, a discount on the cost of printing campaign literature which is made available on the same terms to other customers.

(b) The prohibition against the use of employer money to support the candidacy of a person in any election subject to the provisions of title IV is not restricted to employers who employ members of the labor organization in which the election is being conducted, or who have any business or contractual relationship with the labor organization.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–2011 · leading case: McLaughlin v. Am. Fed'n of Musicians, 700 F. Supp. 726 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McLaughlin v. Am. Fed'n of Musicians, 700 F. Supp. 726 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “is absolute and unequivocal in its prohibition against the use of any union funds”); 29 C.F.R. § 452.78 . In applying section 401(g) to the use of a union logo on a campaign advertisement, one court has noted that: *736 Section 401(g) does not require an actual cash outlay to…”
Solis v. LOCAL 9477, 798 F. Supp. 2d 701 (D. Maryland 2011). “It would not, however, extend to ordinary business practices which result in conferring a benefit, such as, for example, a discount on the cost of printing campaign literature which is made available on the same terms to other customers.”
Jennings v. Peters, 162 F.R.D. 120 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “"); 29 C.F.R. § 452.78 ("This includes indirect as well as direct expenditures____ This prohibition against the use of employer money includes any costs incurred by an employer, or anything of value contributed by an employer, in order to support the candidacy of any individual…”
Donovan v. Local Union 70, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 661 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1981). “See 29 C.F.R. § 452.78 . This is a reasonable interpretation.”
Bernsen v. United States Dep't of Labor, 979 F. Supp. 32 (D.D.C. 1997). “29 C.F.R. § 452.78 ; see Donovan v. Local 719, U.”
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.