64234 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of Labor-Management 

Standards 

RIN 1215–AB50 

Union Organization and Voting Rights: 

Criteria for Characterizing a Labor 

Organization as a ‘‘Local,’’ 

‘‘Intermediate,’’ or ‘‘National or 

International’’ Labor Organization

AGENCY: Office of Labor-Management 

Standards, Employment Standards 

Administration, United States 

Department of Labor.

ACTION: Request for information from 

the public. 

SUMMARY: This notice is a request for 

information from the public to assist the 

Department of Labor (‘‘Department’’) in 

evaluating its methods for determining 

when a labor organization constitutes a 

‘‘local,’’ ‘‘intermediate’’ or ‘‘national or 

international’’ labor organization. Title 

IV of the Labor-Management Reporting 

and Disclosure Act of 1959 (‘‘Act’’), 29 

U.S.C 481–484, gives the Secretary of 

Labor authority to enforce the union 

officer election provisions of the Act. 

The Act calls for different election 

intervals and methods, depending on 

the type of labor union holding the 

election. In cases in which the labor 

organization at issue has no subordinate 

labor organizations, the Department 

considers the labor organization to be a 

local union if it exercises functions 

traditionally associated with local labor 

organizations. In cases in which an 

intermediate body with subordinate 

local unions is claimed to be a local 

union, the Department considers the 

intermediate body to be a local union if 

the intermediate body performs so many 

of the functions of the local unions that 

the local unions no longer continue to 

play a meaningful role. See Harrington

v. Chao, 372 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2004). 

This analysis has been informed by the 

Department’s interpretative regulation, 

found at 29 CFR 452.11, which states: 

‘‘The characterization of a particular 

organizational unit as a ‘local,’ 

‘intermediate,’ etc., is determined by its 

functions and purposes rather than the 

formal title by which it is known or how 

it classifies itself.’’ The purpose of this 

Request for Information is to seek public 

comment on whether the Department’s 

criteria for determining when a union is 

a local, intermediate or national or 

international union is appropriate, or 

whether there are alternatives that 

would better serve the purposes of the 

Act, and properly balance the interests 

of labor organizations and union 

members.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1215–AB50, by any of 

the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Please follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: OLMS-REG-1215-

AB50@dol.gov.

FAX: (202) 693–1340. To assure 

access to the FAX equipment, only 

comments of five or fewer pages will be 

accepted via FAX transmittal, unless 

arrangements are made prior to faxing, 

by calling the number below and 

scheduling a time for FAX receipt by the 

Office of Labor-Management Standards 

(‘‘OLMS’’). 

Mail: Mailed comments should be 

sent to Lary Yud, Deputy Director, 

Office of Labor-Management Standards, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N–

5605, Washington, DC 20210. Because 

the Department continues to experience 

delays in U.S. mail delivery due to the 

ongoing concerns involving toxic 

contamination, commenters should take 

this into consideration when preparing 

to meet the deadline for submitting 

comments. 

It is recommended that you confirm 

receipt of your comment by calling (202) 

693–0123 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Individuals with hearing 

impairments may call 1–800–877–8339 

(TTY/TDD). 

Comments will be available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay 

H. Oshel, Chief, Division of 

Interpretations and Standards, Office of 

Labor-Management Standards, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room N–5605, 

Washington, DC 20210, olmspublic@dol.gov, (202) 693–1233 (this is 

not a toll-free number). Individuals with 

hearing impairments may call 1–800–

877–8339 (TTY/TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

a. The Statutory, Regulatory and 

Administrative Framework 

Under the Labor-Management 

Reporting and Disclosure Act, the 

frequency and method by which a labor 

organization must elect its officers 

depends on whether it is a local union, 

an intermediate union, or a national or 

international union. Specifically, 

section 401(b) of the Act requires that 

‘‘[e]very local labor organization shall 

elect its officers not less often than once 

every three years by secret ballot among 

the members in good standing.’’ 29 

U.S.C. 481(b). Section 401(d) of the Act 

requires that officers of ‘‘intermediate 

bodies, such as general committees, 

system boards, joint boards, or joint 

councils, shall be elected not less often 

than once every four years by secret 

ballot among the members in good 

standing or by labor organization 

officers representative of such members 

who have been elected by secret ballot.’’ 

29 U.S.C. 481(d). Section 401(a) requires 

that ‘‘[e]very national or international 

labor organization * * * shall elect its 

officers not less often than once every 

five years either by secret ballot among 

the members in good standing or at a 

convention of delegates chosen by secret 

ballot.’’ 29 U.S.C. 481(a). 

The Act does not define the terms 

‘‘local,’’ ‘‘intermediate,’’ or ‘‘national or 

international.’’ The Department’s 

regulations state: ‘‘The characterization 

of a particular organizational unit as a 

‘local,’ ‘intermediate,’ etc., is 

determined by its functions and 

purposes rather than the formal title by 

which it is known or how it classifies 

itself.’’ 29 CFR 452.11. The same 

regulation provides examples of entities 

that are intermediate bodies, i.e., 

‘‘general committees, conferences, 

system boards, joint boards, or joint 

councils, certain districts, district 

councils and similar organizations.’’ Id.

Various of these named intermediate 

bodies are described more fully 

elsewhere, see 29 CFR 451.4(f), but none 

of the regulations comprehensively 

define any of these critical terms, or 

provide a framework for distinguishing 

among local, intermediate or national 

and international labor organizations. 

The definition of the term labor 

organization is also relevant to 

identifying the status—local, 

intermediate, or national or 

international—of a labor organization. 

Indeed, the first step in any such 

inquiry is to confirm that the entity in 

question is in fact a labor organization. 

The term labor organization is defined 

by statute:

‘‘Labor organization’’ means a labor 

organization engaged in an industry affecting 

commerce and includes any organization of 

any kind, any agency, or employee 

representation committee, group, association, 

or plan so engaged in which employees 

participate and which exists for the purpose, 

in whole or in part, of dealing with 

employers concerning grievances, labor 

disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other 

terms or conditions of employment, and any 

conference, general committee, joint or 

system board, or joint council so engaged 

which is subordinate to a national or 

international labor organization, other than a 

State or local central body.

29 U.S.C. 402(i).

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 64235

As a related part of this inquiry, it is 

often necessary to determine that the 

entity is a distinct labor organization 

rather than merely a part or component 

of a larger labor organization. To resolve 

this question, the Department has 

adopted a methodology, found in the 

LMRDA Interpretative Manual, to 

determine whether an entity is a 

discrete labor organization or merely an 

undifferentiated portion of an 

encompassing labor organization. The 

methodology follows:

030.603 Separate Existence 

To be considered a labor organization 

under the Act an entity must be a separate 

organization having an organic existence or 

structure of its own, in addition to having the 

other characteristics of a labor organization 

as set forth in sections 3(i) and (j) [29 U.S.C. 

402(i) (j)]. It may not be a mere 

administrative arm or an integral, 

undifferentiated part of another labor 

organization. Various factors are considered 

when determining whether an entity has a 

separate existence. It is not feasible to 

prescribe a precise formula. An analysis must 

be made of all the facts concerning the 

structure and function of a particular entity 

and a determination made on the evidence as 

a whole. Factors to be considered include: 

Whether the existence of the entity is 

recognized by means of a charter, reference 

in the parent body’s constitution, or some 

other manner; whether it has a distinct and 

identifiable membership; whether it may 

accept or reject applications for membership; 

whether it has its own officers; whether it 

holds meetings as a unit with some regularity 

or frequency; whether it has assets of its own; 

whether it may expend funds allocated to it 

or raised by it; whether it may assess and 

collect dues, fees or assessments; whether it 

may discipline its members; whether it is 

represented as a unit at conventions or 

meetings of a parent or other body; and 

whether it engages in collective bargaining, 

grievance handling, or any business 

arrangements.

LMRDA Interpretative Manual, 030.603.

As will be discussed in greater detail 

below, the definition of ‘‘labor 

organization’’ and the methodology for 

determining separate existence are 

critical to determining whether an entity 

is a labor union, whether it constitutes 

one or more unions, and whether it has 

a parent or subordinate union or unions. 

Many larger labor unions conform to a 

three tier configuration, with local 

unions residing at the bottom tier, in a 

position subordinate to intermediate 

bodies, which are themselves 

subordinate to a national or 

international union. Application of the 

definition of ‘‘labor organization’’ and 

the separate existence factors reveals 

whether a union is placed within a 

larger union hierarchy, and, if so, where 

the union is so situated. The 

determination of the structure of the 

entity and the overall union hierarchy is 

the first step in analyzing whether the 

union is a local, intermediate, or 

national or international labor union. 

b. Unions Without Subordinate Labor 

Organizations 

In all cases, the Department begins the 

analysis of whether a union is a local, 

intermediate, or national or 

international union with an analysis of 

the union’s structure. This structural 

analysis is used to determine whether 

the entity is a labor organization, to 

determine whether it constitutes one or 

more unions, and to determine where it 

is situated, if at all, within a larger 

hierarchy of affiliated unions. Two cases 

illustrate the analysis that the 

Department applies when such a 

structural review reveals that an entity 

that has no subordinate bodies claims to 

be an intermediate or national or 

international union. In Schultz v. 

Employees’ Fed’n of the Humble Oil & 

Refining Co. (‘‘Humble Oil’’), 74 L.R.R.M 

(B.N.A.) 2140, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

12288, 1970 WL 5445, (S.D. Tex. Mar. 

31, 1970), the defendant, Employees’

Federation of the Humble Oil and 

Refining Company, Production 

Department, South Texas Division, 

contended that it could not be a local 

union because it contained 26 divisions 

that were separate locals. The 

Department disagreed, and filed a civil 

enforcement action against the 

defendant. As suggested by the LMRDA 

Interpretative Manual, discussed above, 

the court first determined whether the 

defendant’s divisions were discrete 

labor organizations. Humble Oil, 74 

L.R.R.M. at 2141–42. The court 

determined that the divisions had no 

autonomy separate from the defendant. 

Id. at 2143. The divisions did not 

maintain any bank accounts, lease any 

office space, or employ any persons. Id.

They maintained no dues records, 

membership lists, admission 

procedures, and retained no authority to 

expel or discipline officers or members. 

Id. The divisions were thus, the court 

held, ‘‘mere administrative arms or 

subunits’’ of the defendant, and the 

defendant thus had ‘‘the non-complex 

structure [that] is typical of a local labor 

organization,’’ with no discrete labor 

organizations subordinate to it. Id.

Having determined that the 

defendant’s structure was consistent 

with a local labor organization, the court 

reviewed the defendant’s functions. The 

court wrote: ‘‘The defendant performs 

the basic local union functions. It settles 

grievances; collects dues and establishes 

wages, benefits and working conditions 

by contract negotiations with the 

employer; and disciplines its members 

and officers.’’ Id.

A second case also reflects the 

Department’s method for determining 

whether a labor union is a local, under 

circumstances where a structural 

analysis has revealed that a union that 

claims not to be a local union is the 

entity closest to the union members. In 

Donovan v. Nat’l Transient Div., Int’l 

Bhd. of Boilermakers, (‘‘Boilermakers’’),

736 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1984), the 

defendant, National Transient Division 

(‘‘NTD’’), characterized itself as a 

division of an international labor 

organization. It represented craftsmen 

who traveled throughout the United 

States. Id. at 619. The court first held 

that the NTD was a labor organization 

itself, and not merely a division of the 

international labor organization. Id. at 

621–22. Next, the court determined that 

the NTD was a local, rather than an 

international, labor organization. Id. at 

622–23. The court observed that the 

NTD was ‘‘subordinate to the 

International, and has no subordinate 

labor organizations.’’ Id. at 623. Thus, 

the court held, the NTD ‘‘has the 

relatively simple organizational 

structure characteristic of local labor 

organizations.’’ Id.

The court also reviewed the functions 

of the union. ‘‘Most important, NTD 

performs the functions of a local. NTD 

officials negotiate the basic terms of 

collective bargaining agreements, ensure 

that those agreements are enforced, 

handle grievances, collect dues from 

members, maintain out-of-work lists, 

hold meetings at which members 

express their views, and provide a 

number of other services directly to 

NTD members.’’

In both Boilermakers and Humble Oil,

the Department advanced the position 

that the structure of a union must be 

closely analyzed to determine whether 

the entity in question is part of another 

labor organization or whether it has 

subordinate labor organizations. In both 

cases, this analysis revealed that the 

labor organization in question was the 

labor organization closest to the 

members. At that point, the Department 

looked to whether the union exercised 

a variety of functions traditionally 

associated with local labor unions, and 

if so, took the position that the union 

was a local labor organization. 

c. Intermediate Bodies With Subordinate 

Labor Organizations 

In a recent case, the Department 

examined the methodology used to 

distinguish an intermediate union from 

a local union. Harrington v. Chao, 372 

F.3d 52, 63 (1st Cir. 2004). In this case, 

the labor organization in question was 

64236 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 

structurally intermediate, in that it was 

subordinate to a national union and 

oversaw local labor organizations, but it 

performed a number of important 

functions generally performed by local 

unions. The ‘‘inquiry in determining 

whether an entity designated by the 

union as an intermediate body should 

instead be considered a local body,’’ the 

Department explained, ‘‘is whether the 

intermediate body has taken on so many 

of the traditional functions of a local 

union that it must in actuality be 

considered a local union.’’ January 31, 

2003, Supplemental Statement of 

Reasons for Dismissing the Complaint of 

Thomas Harrington, p 3. ‘‘If the 

subordinate organizations in fact 

continue to perform functions and exist 

for purposes traditionally associated 

with local labor unions, the union’s 

characterization of an entity placed 

structurally between such organizations 

and the international union as an 

’intermediate body’ will be upheld even 

though the intermediate body also 

performs some other functions 

traditionally associated with local 

unions.’’ Id. at 4. This analysis was 

upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the First Circuit. Harrington, 372 F.3d at 

63. 

The Department’s extensive 

explanation of the method for 

distinguishing intermediate unions from 

local unions was the result of a union 

member’s complaint, and subsequent 

litigation. In 1999, several union 

members filed an election protest with 

the Secretary pursuant to Title IV of the 

Act, 29 U.S.C. 482, arguing that the New 

England Regional Council of Carpenters 

(‘‘NERCC’’) was not an ‘‘intermediate 

body,’’ but a ‘‘local labor organization’’

required by section 401(b) of the Act to 

‘‘elect its officers not less often than 

once every three years by secret ballot 

among the members in good standing.’’

29 U.S.C. 481(b). The NERCC comprised 

27 affiliated locals and was subordinate 

to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters 

and Joiners of America (‘‘UBC’’), a 

national labor organization. The NERCC 

was created in 1996, when the UBC 

combined state and district councils, as 

well as independent local unions, into 

larger regional councils. In New 

England, the NERCC, a single, regional 

council overseeing a number of preexisting local unions, had over 25,000 

members. The NERCC’s subordinate 

bodies constituted separate labor 

organizations. 

In April 2000, the Department issued 

a Statement of Reasons explaining why 

it had determined that the NERCC was 

an ‘‘intermediate bod[y]’’ within the 

meaning of section 401(d) of the Act, 29 

U.S.C. 481(d), and could therefore elect 

its officers every four years either by 

secret ballot among the members in 

good standing or by a vote of delegates 

who had been elected by secret ballot by 

the members in good standing of 

NERCC’s subordinate locals.

The complainants challenged this 

determination in United States District 

Court, which rejected the suit. 

Harrington v. Herman, 138 F. Supp. 2d 

232 (D. Mass. 2001). The complainants 

appealed to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the First Circuit, which 

reversed the district court and vacated 

the Department’s Statement of Reasons. 

Harrington v. Chao, 280 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 

2002). The statement was flawed, the 

court held, because it left two questions 

unanswered. Id. at 57. First, the 

statement suggested that the Department 

had rejected a ‘‘functional’’ analysis in 

determining whether a labor 

organization is a local or an 

intermediate labor organization, 

notwithstanding a regulation holding 

that the ‘‘characterization of a particular 

organizational unit * * * is determined 

by its functions and purposes.’’ Id.; see

29 CFR 425.11. Second, the statement 

failed to discuss two relevant cases, 

leaving it unclear whether the 

Department’s approach was consistent 

with these precedents, and the positions 

that the Department had taken while 

litigating them. Id. at 57–58, citing 

Donovan v. Nat’l Transient Div., Int’l 

Bhd. of Boilermakers, (‘‘Boilermakers’’),

736 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1984), and 

Schultz v. Employees’ Fed’n of the 

Humble Oil & Refining Co. (‘‘Humble 

Oil’’), 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12288, 1970 

WL 5445, 74 LRRM 2140 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 

31, 1970). 

On remand, the Department issued a 

lengthy Supplemental Statement of 

Reasons that explained why the NERCC 

was properly characterized as an 

intermediate body under the Act, the 

regulations, and the applicable 

precedent. First, the statement 

recognized that the Department’s 

regulations, specifically 29 CFR 452.11, 

made it clear that whether an entity is 

a local or intermediate body is 

dependent upon its ‘‘functions and 

purposes’’ as opposed to ‘‘the formal 

title by which it is known or how it 

classifies itself.’’ In construing this 

language, the Department reasoned that 

an entity designated by the union as an 

intermediate body should instead be 

considered a local body if the 

intermediate body ‘‘has taken on so 

many of the traditional functions of a 

local union that it must in actuality be 

considered a local union.’’ Although the 

statement recognized that the 

Department has never found an 

organization at the middle tier of a 

union structure to be a local, the 

statement observed that Congress’

requirement of direct elections for local 

unions demonstrated its view that local 

unions perform meaningful functions. 

Viewing the regulation in light of this 

history and Congressional intent, the 

Department concluded, ‘‘If the 

subordinate organizations in fact 

continue to perform functions and exist 

for purposes traditionally associated 

with local labor unions, the union’s 

characterization of an entity placed 

structurally between such organizations 

and the international union as an 

‘intermediate body’ will be upheld even 

though the intermediate body also 

performs some other functions 

traditionally associated with local 

unions.’’ Supplemental Statement of 

Reasons, p.4. 

Second, the Department analyzed the 

legislative history of the Act and the 

actual practices of unions when the Act 

was passed to conclude that 

intermediate, national, and international 

labor organizations at that time engaged 

in important representational activity 

both in conjunction with, and in lieu of, 

subordinate local unions. Specifically, 

the Department noted that the Act’s 

legislative history makes it clear that 

intermediate bodies may wield 

‘‘responsible governing power’’ within a 

labor union without being considered 

local unions under the Act. S. Rep. No. 

187, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. at 20, 

reprinted in 1959 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2318, 

2336. National Labor Relations Board 

decisions issued prior to enactment of 

the Act, the Department noted, made 

plain the practice of superior labor 

organizations to bargain collectively on 

behalf of subordinate entities. 

Third, the statement observed that the 

organization’s placement within the 

structure of a union was ‘‘highly 

relevant in determining whether it is a 

‘local’ or ‘intermediate’ union.’’ The 

statute itself identifies intermediate 

bodies by their structural placement 

within the hierarchy of affiliated 

unions, or by a name historically 

associated with a particular tier within 

the union. The term Congress used to 

denominate these entities—intermediate 

bodies—suggests the relevance of an 

organization’s placement within the 

overall structure of the union. The 

language of the statute, the Department 

concluded, authorized the Department 

to take into account the entity’s 

structural placement when considering 

whether it is an intermediate body or a 

local union. 

The Department also reviewed the 

case law for consistency with its 

analysis of the regulation, statute, and 

legislative history. The statement 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 64237

concluded that the positions that the 

Department took in Boilermakers and 

Humble Oil, and the dispositions in 

those cases, did not compel a different 

analysis. In both cases, there were no 

labor organizations subordinate to the 

union whose status was at issue, and 

categorization as a local union was thus 

consistent with both the union’s 

structure and functions. The cases, the 

statement concluded, provided no 

controlling authority when a union’s 

structure and functions were not 

aligned. 

Applying the Department’s analysis, 

which reviewed the NERCC’s structural 

placement within the hierarchy of 

affiliated unions, the NERCC’s 

functions, and the functions of the 

NERCC’s locals, the Department 

determined that the NERCC was an 

intermediate union. Dissatisfied with 

the Supplemental Statement of Reasons, 

the complainants renewed the litigation 

in the United States District Court of 

Massachusetts, which granted judgment 

for the complainants. Harrington v. 

Chao, 286 F.Supp. 2d 80 (D. Mass. 

2003). The Department appealed, 

bringing the issue once again before the 

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In a split decision, the Court of 

Appeals ruled that the Department did 

not act arbitrarily and capriciously in 

declining to bring suit against the 

NERCC. Harrington v. Chao, 372 F.3d 

52 (1st Cir. 2004). The court reversed 

the district court, upholding the 

Department’s determination that the 

NERCC is an ‘‘intermediate’’ labor 

organization and therefore not required 

to elect its officers directly. Id. 

The complainant’s primary argument 

was that the Department did not focus 

upon the NERCC in conducting its 

analysis, in order to determine whether 

the NERCC exercised local rather than 

intermediate functions, but improperly 

focused on the locals themselves. Id. at 

60. Circuit Judge Lynch, writing for the 

court, observed that the Department 

examined the functions of the NERCC, 

as well as those of the locals, and noted 

that some of those functions, such as 

collective bargaining and disciplining 

members, have historically been the 

province of both locals and intermediate 

bodies dating back prior to the passage 

of the Act. Id. at 60. Further, the court 

rejected the argument that because a 

local traditionally performed collective 

bargaining and grievance handling, any 

labor organization, regardless of its 

placement within the union’s structure, 

would also be local if it performs these 

functions. The court reasoned that this 

assumption would contradict the 

Congressional observation that 

intermediate bodies exercise 

‘‘responsible governing powers,’’ and 

nothing in the statute required the 

Department to draw up a list of 

functions that could be performed by 

one kind of entity but not any others. Id.

at 62. The court concluded that 

although the Department’s approach 

had shifted in emphasis, the Department 

was permitted some flexibility in 

interpreting the Act and the regulations 

provided it furnished some explanation, 

which it did here. Id. at 63. 

In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge 

Lipez expressed concern that Congress 

did not intend intermediate bodies to 

hold the degree of power held by the 

NERCC, but nonetheless upheld the 

Department’s conclusion because of the 

‘‘highly deferential standard’’ under 

which the courts review the 

Department’s decision not to sue. Id. at 

63–70. In a dissenting opinion, Circuit 

Judge Torruella faulted the 

Department’s analysis for focusing on 

the powers retained by the subordinate 

bodies, and not on the NERCC’s powers, 

and stated that this represented an 

impermissible departure from past 

administrative practice. Id. at 70–75. 

d. Review of the Method of Determining 

the Status of Labor Organization 

The judicial decision upholding the 

Department’s method of determining 

whether a union is a local or an 

intermediate held that the Department’s 

position was lawful, but did not address 

whether the position struck the most 

favorable balance between protecting 

union members’ interests and 

preserving unions’ ability to structure 

themselves in a manner they deem most 

advantageous. 

In its initial opinion, the Court of 

Appeals indicated that if the Secretary 

should wish to change the governing 

regulation, 29 CFR 452.11, she must do 

so in accord with the general 

rulemaking provisions of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553. Harrington v. Chao, 280 F.3d at 59. 

Congress has implicitly delegated the 

authority to the Secretary to interpret 

the union officer election provisions of 

the Act by charging her with a variety 

of substantial responsibilities under the 

statute, not the least of which is the 

Secretary’s authority to investigate 

allegations of election violations. See 29 

U.S.C. 481. The delegation of legal 

interpretive power is also evident in her 

exclusive authority to file a civil action 

in U.S. district court, seeking an order 

that a union election be declared void, 

and a new election be conducted under 

the supervision of the Department of 

Labor. See 29 U.S.C. 482. 

The determination of the status of a 

labor organization is a complex matter. 

To better understand the effect of the 

Department’s current regulatory and 

interpretive framework on unions, 

union members, and the public, the 

Department seeks additional 

information. This information will 

permit the Secretary to determine 

whether the Department’s position 

adequately meets the needs of labor 

organizations and their members, and to 

determine whether additional 

rulemaking is necessary to fully realize 

the purposes of the Act. 

II. Information Sought

The Secretary seeks public comment 

from interested parties regarding the 

Department’s analyses for determining 

whether a labor organization constitutes 

a local, intermediate, or national or 

international labor organization. In 

particular, the Secretary is seeking 

written submissions on the following 

topics: 

The terms ‘‘local labor organization’’

and ‘‘intermediate bod[y]’’ and 

‘‘national or international labor 

organization’’ are not defined in the Act 

but they are crucial in the Title IV 

scheme for democratic union elections. 

Should the Secretary issue a regulation 

defining these terms? If so, what should 

these definitions be? What elements or 

factors should be considered when 

formulating definitions for these terms? 

Are there certain functions that are so 

inextricably related to the fundamental 

purpose of unions and the daily work 

life of their members that labor 

organizations exercising these functions 

must be considered local unions? 

If so, what are these functions? Are 

these functions limited to labor relations 

functions such as negotiating collective 

bargaining agreements, ratifying 

collective bargaining agreements, 

handling grievances, handling 

arbitration, controlling work referral 

systems, controlling business agents, 

controlling organizers, controlling 

stewards, calling strikes, etc.? Or should 

other functions such as disciplining 

members, raising rates of dues, or 

controlling a large part of the dues paid 

by members also be considered? 

If a list of such functions could be 

compiled, how would the functions be 

applied to determine local union status? 

For example, should such a method 

require that an entity exercise a certain 

number of the functions to be 

considered a local or are one or two of 

the functions so critical that exercising 

them would be evidence of local status? 

Are there any functions uniquely 

associated with national or international 

unions, suggesting that any entity with 

such characteristics would be 

considered a national or international 

64238 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 

union? Similarly, are there functions 

that are uniquely associated with 

intermediate bodies? 

The factors that the Department uses 

in determining whether an entity has a 

separate organic existence or structure 

of its own, as described in the LMRDA 

Interpretative Manual, are:

• Whether the existence of the entity is 

referenced through a charter, referenced in 

the parent body’s constitution and bylaws, 

or some other manner 

• Whether it has its own constitution and 

bylaws, or other governing rules 

• Whether it has a distinct and identifiable 

membership 

• Whether it may accept or reject 

applications for membership 

• Whether it has its own officers 

• Whether it holds meetings as a unit with 

some regularity or frequency 

• Whether it has assets of its own 

sessments 

• Whether it may discipline its members 

• Whether it is represented as a unit at 

conventions or meetings of a parent or 

other body 

• Whether it engages in collective bargaining 

• Whether it engages in grievance handling 

• Whether it engages in any business 

arrangements

LMRDA Interpretative Manual, 030.603.

Are all of these factors relevant to 

determining whether a labor 

organization has a separate existence? 

Are relevant factors missing from this 

list? At what point has an entity lost so 

many of these attributes that it becomes 

an administrative arm of another labor 

organization, rather than a separate 

labor organization? 

How much significance should be 

attributed to an entity’s placement 

above a local labor organization within 

a hierarchy of affiliated labor 

organizations in determining if it is a 

local or intermediate body? Would the 

application of a strictly functional test 

to determine the status of a labor union 

be consistent with the Act? 

What concerns, if any, would arise 

from an intermediate body being 

reclassified as a local union? What 

effect, if any, would classification of an 

intermediate body as a local union have 

on the local status of its subordinate 

unions (assuming the subordinate 

unions retain sufficient functions and 

attributes distinct from the purported 

intermediate body to constitute discrete 

labor organizations)? Can a union 

supervise other local unions and still 

maintain status as a local union? 

There appear to be cases in which an 

intermediate body, or a national or 

international union, has members that 

are not members of a local union. What 

elections do these members participate 

in? Should the existence of such 

members be a factor in determining the 

status of a labor organization as a local 

union? If so, what weight should this 

factor be given? 

Have any unions changed their 

structure in reliance on the 

Department’s existing positions? Have 

unions developed plans to devolve 

additional responsibility to intermediate 

or national or international labor 

organizations, based on the 

Department’s articulated positions? 

What is the proper analysis to 

distinguish a national or international 

union from a local? Should a different 

analysis apply if the entity at issue has 

constituent labor organizations? Should 

the method of distinguishing a national 

or international union from a local 

union be the same or different than that 

used to distinguish an intermediate 

body from a local? 

In addition to these questions, the 

Department seeks information and 

evidence on the following topics:

• The functions performed by a typical 

local in 1959 

• The functions performed by a typical 

intermediate body in 1959 

• The difference in the functions of 

locals today as compared to 1959 

• The difference in the functions of 

intermediate bodies today as 

compared to 1959 

• Situations in which union bodies 

other than a local union perform 

functions such as negotiating 

collective bargaining agreements, 

ratifying collective bargaining 

agreements, handling first stage 

grievances, handling arbitration, 

controlling work referral systems, 

controlling business agents, 

controlling organizers, controlling 

stewards, calling strikes, etc.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of 

October, 2004. 

Victoria A. Lipnic, 

Assistant Secretary for Employment 

Standards. 

Don Todd, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for LaborManagement Programs.

[FR Doc. 04–24452 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–CP–P