Opinion ID: 2612478
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background and Purposes

Text: The LMRDA (29 U.S.C. ง 401 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this source unless otherwise noted) was enacted in 1959 as the product of congressional concern with widespread abuses of power by union leadership. ( Finnegan v. Leu (1982) 456 U.S. 431, 435 [72 L.Ed.2d 239, 243, 102 S.Ct. 1867].) Section 401 sets forth Congress's findings and purpose: [I]t is essential, that section states, that labor organizations, employers, and their officials adhere to the highest standards of responsibility and ethical conduct in administering the affairs of their organizations, particularly as they affect labor-management relations. (ง 401(a), italics added.) Congressional investigation during the 1950's had disclosed numerous instances of union corruption and breaches of trust, as well as general disregard for the rights of individual members. Accordingly, the LMRDA was enacted to afford necessary protection of the rights and interests of employees and the public generally as they relate to the activities of labor organizations, employers, labor relations consultants, and their officers and representatives. (ง 401(b), italics added.) In addition, Congress declared that enactment of this Chapter is necessary to eliminate or prevent improper practices on the part of labor organizations, employers, labor relations consultants, and their officers and representatives.... (ง 401(c), italics added.) The LMRDA as initially drafted was concerned with disclosure requirements, union trusteeships, and elections for union office. [5] The perceived need to provide additional protections for union members led to the inclusion of several amendments. As a result, subchapter II (งง 411-415), the Bill of Rights for union members, was added. [6] The amendments placed emphasis on the rights of union members to freedom of expression without fear of sanctions by the union, which in many instances could mean loss of union membership and in turn loss of livelihood. Such protection was necessary to further the Act's primary objective of ensuring that unions would be democratically governed and responsive to the will of their memberships. [Citations.] ( Finnegan v. Leu, supra, 456 U.S. 431, 435-436 [72 L.Ed.2d at p. 244].) Thus, the LMRDA was enacted against a backdrop of abuses by union leadership. It was a remedial measure designed to bid farewell to the regime of benevolent well-meaning union autocrats ( Blanchard v. Johnson (N.D. Ohio 1975) 388 F. Supp. 208, 215), and instead to protect specific rights of union members, to require implementation of democratic election procedures, and to impose obligations of ethical and fiduciary accountability on union leaders.