Opinion ID: 78464
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevant Department of Labor Regulations

Text: In 1963, the Department of Labor promulgated regulations to implement the employer reporting requirements of the LMRDA, specifying that every employer required to file an annual report by section 203(a) of the Act and § 405.2 shall file such report on the United States Department of Labor Form LM-10 ... in the detail required by the instructions accompanying such form and constituting a part thereof. 29 C.F.R. § 405.3. The Instructions require employers to report only certain transactions: Only those employers as defined in the [LMRDA] who have been involved in certain financial transactions or arrangements with labor organizations, union officials, employees, or labor relations consultants, or who have made expenditures for certain objects relating to employees' or unions' activities. The Instructions also exempt from reporting sporadic or occasional gifts, gratuities, or favors of insubstantial value, given under circumstances and terms unrelated to the recipient's status in a labor organization; e.g., traditional Christmas gifts. The LMRDA Interpretive Manual (Manual) was also published in 1963, giving guidance on implementing the statute and regulations. Like the Instructions, the Manual explained that certain payments need not be reported. It used a discretionary subjective standard to determine what payments qualified as of insubstantial value, requiring that each case ... be considered on its own facts. The Secretary's decision not to enforce the reporting requirements for payments of insubstantial value is known as the de minimis exemption. Warshauer introduced testimony of former Department of Labor officials, suggesting that historically the Secretary interpreted the LM-10 reporting requirement to apply only to employers who engaged in persuader activities. [1] Moreover, it is clear that historically, insubstantial value was determined on a case-by-case basis, rather than a fixed dollar amount. The issues in this case arose when the Secretary allegedly departed from these historical practices by publishing advisories on her website regarding the application of § 203(a)(1) to DLCs and the de minimis exemption.