[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 2]
[Revised as of July 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR452.36]

[Page 179]
 
                             TITLE 29--LABOR
 
  CHAPTER IV--OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 
PART 452_GENERAL STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ELECTION PROVISIONS OF THE 
LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959--Table of Contents
 
        Subpart E_Candidacy for Office; Reasonable Qualifications
 
Sec. 452.36  Reasonableness of qualifications.

    (a) The question of whether a qualification is reasonable is a 
matter which is not susceptible of precise definition, and will 
ordinarily turn on the facts in each case. However, court decisions in 
deciding particular cases have furnished some general guidelines. The 
Supreme Court in Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel and Club Employees Union, Local 
6, 391 U.S. 492 at 499 (1968) held that:

    Congress plainly did not intend that the authorization in section 
401(e) of `reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed' should be given 
a broad reach. The contrary is implicit in the legislative history of 
the section and in its wording that `every member in good standing shall 
be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office * * *.' This conclusion 
is buttressed by other provisions of the Act which stress freedom of 
members to nominate candidates for Office. Unduly restrictive candidacy 
qualifications can result in the abuses of entrenched leadership that 
the LMRDA was expressly enacted to curb. The check of democratic 
elections as a preventive measure is seriously impaired by candidacy 
qualifications which substantially deplete the ranks of those who might 
run in opposition to incumbents.


Union qualifications for office should not be based on assumptions that 
certain experience or qualifications are necessary. Rather it must be 
assumed that the labor organization members will exercise common sense 
and judgment in casting their ballots. ``Congress' model of democratic 
elections was political elections in this country'' (Wirtz v. Local 6, 
391 U.S. at 502) and a qualification may not be required without a 
showing that citizens assumed to make discriminating judgments in public 
elections cannot be relied on to make such judgments when voting as 
union members.
    (b) Some factors to be considered, therefore, in assessing the 
reasonableness of a qualification for union office are:
    (1) The relationship of the qualification to the legitimate needs 
and interests of the union;
    (2) The relationship of the qualification to the demands of union 
office;
    (3) The impact of the qualification, in the light of the 
Congressional purpose of fostering the broadest possible participation 
in union affairs;
    (4) A comparison of the particular qualification with the 
requirements for holding office generally prescribed by other labor 
organizations; and
    (5) The degree of difficulty in meeting a qualification by union 
members.