*1 LOCAL 3489, UNITED OF STEELWORKERS AMERICA,
AFL-CIO, al. v. USERY, SECRETARY OF LABOR et Argued No. 75-657. November January 1976 Decided 12, 1977 *2 petitioners. With argued Carl B. Frankel the cause for Cohen, George E. Lawson, him on the were briefs H. Alfred Gottesman, H. and Bernard Kleiman. Michael respondent. On the Rupp argued John P. the cause for Bork, Attorney General Assistant were Solicitor General brief E. III, Schaitman, Eloise F. Leonard Lee, William Sheehan A. Marshall Kilberg, Bloch, J. Beate William Davies, Deutsch.* of the Court. opinion delivered the Brennan
Mr. Justice in the District this action Secretary brought of Labor The of (b) 402 under § of Indiana for District Court the Southern 1959 Reporting Disclosure Act Labor-Management to invalidate § 29 U. C. 482 (b), 73 S. (LMRDA), 534, Stat. Steelworkers of Local United of officers 1970 election provision Secretary alleged that The America. Local, binding on the constitution, International Steelworkers’ members office to for local union eligibility limits regular least one-half have attended at pre- (unless the election years previous to for three the Local Federa- American for the and Laurence Gold filed a brief *J. Albert Woll curiae as amicus Organizations Congress of Industrial Labor and tion of urging reversal.
307 vented union activities or working hours),1 § violated 401 (e) of the 29 U. S. C. (e).2 §481 The District LMRDA, Court dismissed the finding no violation of the complaint, Act. Appeals Court the Seventh Circuit reversed. 2d (1975). F. granted We certiorari resolve a conflict Circuits among over whether the Steelworkers’ con- provision stitutional (e).3 § violates (1976). U. S. 907 We affirm.
I
At the
challenged
time of the
election,
approxi-
there were
mately 660 members in good
standing
Local 3489. The
Appeals
Court of
found that
of these members were
96.5%
ineligible to hold
because
satisfy
of failure
the meet-
*3
ing-attendance
rule.4 Of the 23 eligible members, nine were
1 Constitution
Union,
America,
of International
United
of
Steelworkers
VII,
(c) (1968).
Art.
§9
2
provides,
pertinent part:
This
in
section
“(e)
any
by
required
this section which is
be held
to
secret
a
opportunity
given
ballot
reasonable
shall be
for the nomination
every
good standing
eligible
candidates and
member in
be
be
shall
to
(subject
candidate and to hold office
to
504
to reasonable
section
and
qualifications uniformly imposed)
right
and shall have the
to vote
support
choice,
for or otherwise
the candidate
candidates
his
or
subject
being
penalty,
without
discipline,
improper
or
interference
reprisal
organization
any
or
kind
such
.
or
member thereof. . .
The election shall be conducted in accordance with the constitution and
bylaws
organization
of such
they
insofar as
are not inconsistent with
provisions
of this title.”
3The
requirement
Steelworkers’ attendance
was held not
to violate
(e)
Steelworkers,
1973).
(CA6
in Brennan
2d
v.
489
884
Similar
§401
F.
meeting-attendance requirements of other unions were found unreasonable
Usery
Union,
(CA1
in
Transit
1976);
v.
545 F.
Brennan
2d 1300
v.
Teamsters,
App.
1092,
(1974);
161 U. S.
D. C.
494
2dF.
1099-1100
Wirtz
Assn.,
Bottle
(CA3 1968).
v.
Blowers
incumbent argues, Appeals Court of the failure of the local held, 96.5% meeting-attendance members to satisfy requirement, potential rule’s effect of candidates requiring insurgent plan candidacies 18 months advance early their as opposition might of the election for their when reasons has yet requirement not emerged,5 established that local elections. substantial effect on antidemocratic it because serves argue Petitioners reasonable imposes very obligation valid union burdensome purposes, device that proved on the and has members, in the particular officers clique entrenches a incumbent local.
II have identified opinions in three cases decided whether pertinent to the determination the considerations Em (e). Wirtz v. §401 tlie attendance rule violates Assn., v. Bottle ployees, 492; U. Wirtz Blowers S. 477. Union, 389 463; Wirtz v. Laborers’ U. S. S. powerless restrict The LMRDA not render unions does § injunction for union office. The candidacies contend meetings he Petitioners now absences to the attended. eligible excused absences. because of other members also have been meetings was average In view the facts admitted *4 day evening only 47, meetings split sessions that held in and the were unlikely a any attend, that it seems that on shift could so workers qualify by In significant method. number workers could of event, petitioners suggest members other evidence introduced no to Court, unpublished eligible, the in its than District the above were “in of opinion, accepted Secretary’s excess apparently the assertion that circumstances, disqualified. we membership the these of local’s was 90%” been findings speculate cannot the of the courts below materially inaccurate. 5Regular monthly Thus, in to meetings basis. order were held on three-year previously period, inactive in a attend half of begin attending 18 desiring have to member run to for office months before election. “every member in good standing shall be eligible to be
a candidate and to hold office” is made expressly “subject . . qualifications reasonable . uniformly imposed.” “Congress did plainly not intend that . authorization . . qualifications ‘reasonable .. .’ should be given a broad contrary implicit reach. The in legislative history of the section and in its . . .” Wirtz Em . v. Hotel wording ployees, supra, at 499. objective The basic of Title IV of the LMRDA is to guarantee “free and democratic” union elections “political modeled on elections this country” assumption where “the is that will voters exercise common judgment sense and casting their ballots.” 391 U. S., Thus, 504. IV is designed merely protect Title of a union run right particular member to for a par office in a ticular election. “Congress emphatically asserted vital public in assuring interest free and democratic union elec complain tions transcends the narrower interest Assn., supra, member.” Wirtz v. Bottle Blowers union ing Union, supra, Wirtz v. Laborers’ 475; goal at 483. The was “protect rights participate of rank-and-file members to fully operation processes in the through their union self-government, process, democratic and, through the keep leadership membership.” the union responsive supra, Wirtz Employees, Hotel at 497. v. particular qualification
Whether a is “reasonable” within of 401 (e) must “be measured meaning § therefore terms consistency to conduct its with the Act’s command to unions ‘free and democratic’ elections.” 391 at 499. S., corrupt only was not concerned with union leader Congress ship. goal chose the of “free and democratic” Congress preventive possibility “to curb the elections as a measure leader benevolent as malevolent entrenched abuse well Id., Employees expressly ship.” held that that at 503. by candidacy which seriously impaired qualifications check was might run in substantially of those who deplete the ranks *5 and therefore held invalid incumbents, opposition candi- restricted candidacy limitation there involved previously who had for members certain dacies positions objective of Title given IY, office. “Plainly, union held union members which renders candidacy limitation 93% ” qualification.’ be a 'reasonable hardly for office can ineligible Id., at 502.
Ill conclude that case, to this we principles these Applying meeting-attendance effects of the. here, too, antidemocratic Like the support. in its urged the interests outweigh rule requirement an attendance bylaw Hotel Employees, from can- of the members the exclusion of results 96.5% to- “reasonable didacy hardly seems be a for union office democratic goal with the free and qualification” consistent se- obviously requirement having A result elections. membership in select- the free choice verely restricts its leaders. ing violative bylaw that the held however, argue,
Petitioners from the at- Employees significantly in Hotel differs 401§ no bylaw Employees rule here. Under tendance eligi- he own efforts could assure his member for criterion controlled the since others ble for (cid:127) can assure member hand, on other Here, eligibility. attending some candidacy eligibility himself words, In other three-year period. meetings brief over a category excluding a treated not as union would have its rule pro- mandating a simply but eligibility, of member from to be a who wishes by any member to be followed cedure candidate. however, from this
Even examined perspective, absence In the democracy.'6 on union restrictive effect has a relatively short argue that Petitioners member. very on onerous burden years is three over must aims. We which the statute the evil at argument misconceives *6 of a permanent “opposition party” within the opposi- union, tion to the incumbent leadership likely is to re- emerge in sponse particular to issues different and member times, interest changing union leadership is likely therefore be at its highest only shortly before is elections.7 Thus it probable to require that that a member decide upon poten- candidacy tial at least 18 months in advance of an election when no issues prompt exist to that may decision not foster but discourage candidacies and that impair extent the general membership’s freedom to oust incumbents in favor of new leadership.
Nor persuaded are by petitioners’ we argument Secretary has failed to show an antidemocratic because effect he has not shown that the incumbent union leaders of the became “entrenched” in their offices as a of the consequence operation of leaderships rule. The reasons for becoming entrenched are difficult to isolate. The election year same officers year may after signal antidemocratic election prevented rules have an effective chal- lenge or regime, might to the signal only well members are satisfied with their stewardship; if elections are opposition may factions have been denied access uncontested, to the or ballot, competing may compromised interests unity. differences before election to maintain front of Conversely, open polit- turnover in from offices result an or competition ical from a process, limited to candidates opposition no offer real to an entrenched establishment. duty did Congress not saddle the courts with the improperly out remove leader- search entrenched union democracy ships Congress guarantee chose Bather, judge eligibEity imposes the burden it the individual not on processes effect on free and democratic candidate but its Employees, Wirtz v. government. S., 499. organized Secretary suggests in most such unions there pattern typical. opposition and that described the text indeed procedure electoral by regulating results of a union’s if procedure itself. decided that the elec- Congress but are members themselves democratic,” tions are “free leadership. power by entrenched able to correct abuse unduly among restrict free choice candidates Procedures that without their success or failure regard are forbidden *7 leadership. maintaining corrupt is reasonable within Petitioners next argue -union meetings, attendance at encourages § 401 because it by qualified limiting more and assures officers affairs, those who demonstrated an interest the rule has problems. with union and are familiar obviously little It has done plainly goals. not served these attract continue to which encourage attendance meetings, goal limited to the more only handful of members.8 Even as a candi- dissident potential the attendance encouraging see likely are members, said, as we have very dates, few the election sufficiently far advance as such themselves by rule. spurred to be attendance dedicated knowledgeable assuring As for the election con- express a provisions of LMRDA the election leaders, is to end means to this that the best determination gressional open membership of leaders to the the choice leave arbitrary exclusions. unfettered elections, democratic membership the bulk of excluding Pursuing goal possibility limiting office, and thus eligibility from basic directly counter to the runs candidacies, of dissident Con- conclude the statute. We therefore premise opportunity member every union in guaranteeing gress, subject qualifications,” only to “reasonable hold 8 approxi averages 47 out of Local 3489’s Attendance this total record in the indication mately members. There institution before significant increase over represents a challenged rule. disabled unions from establishing eligibility qualifications sharply openness restrictive of the of the union political process petitioners’ as is attendance rule.
IY Finally, petitioners argue that precise absence statement of what the Secretary of Labor and the courts will regard as reasonable prevents the drafting of meeting- attendance rule with any assurance that it will be valid (e). §401 under to whom Secretary, Congress has as signed special role in the administration of the see Act, Calhoon Harvey, v. 379 U. S. (1964); Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 S. has (1975), the following announced view:
“Experience has demonstrated that it is not feasible to establish arbitrary guidelines for judging reason- ableness of meeting-attendance eligibility require- [a *8 Its ment]. reasonableness gauged must be in the light of all the particular circumstances of the including case, only the frequency meetings, number of the which meetings must be attended and period the of time over which the requirement extends, but also such fac- tors the nature, availability pro- and extent of excuse visions, whether all or most oppor- members have the tunity to attend impact and the of the rule, meetings, i. the number or e., percentage of members who would be rendered ineligible by application.” its 29 CFR (a) §452.38 (1976). this standard
Obviously, uncertainty leads to more than would a less rule. flexible But in using word “reason- able,” Congress clearly contemplated exactly such a flexible result. on the of this facts case and in Moreover, light Hotel Employees, petitioners’ contention that had no they way of knowing a rule disqualifying over of a local’s 90% 314 from office be as unreasonable regarded
members justification unpersuasive.9 of substantial absence Affirmed. whom Powell, with Justice Justice Stewart Mr. Mr. Rehnquist dissenting. join, Justice Mr. petitioners’ imposed the constitu- rule, provides Union, tion of the International Steelworkers’ to a local eligible no member shall be regular office unless he has attended one-half months. The preceding 36 during of his local union among Circuits, conflict today, resolving Court holds is not reasonable within this eligibility requirement Labor-Management meaning Title IV §of Act, As (e). 481§ 29 U. Reporting and Disclosure S. C. inter- an holding me unwarranted seems to in- its own manage right of the union ference with I ternal dissent. affairs, Act IV of the of Title purpose
Stated broadly, elections. insure “free and democratic” that Con- history shows legislative Act] [of “[t]he best, against revealed legislate weighed how gress needlessly departing without in union elections abuses unnecessary gov- policy against its long-standing from Wirtz union affairs.” into internal intrusion ernmental ; (1968) Assn., 463, U. S. 470-471 v. Bottle Blowers (1968). 391 U. S. Employees, Wirtz v. Hotel know argument union cannot unpersuasive is the Also *9 by meeting-attend disqualified a many will be of members how its advance petitioners predictable, be precise not number ance rule. While the general rate union attendance of the had awareness must have some (and typical there at all rate is meetings, if Local 3489’s attendance and fairly obvious not), have been it should it contention attendance maintained had not disqualifying all that a rule 50% among stringent such rules admittedly the most years, one of three impact. significant antidemocratic unions, a labor Section reflects a congressional intent to accommodate purposes. both these provides organization It that a labor may set qualifications “reasonable imposed” for uniformly members in good standing who wish to be candidates hold to office. There is no contention that the attendance rule question not imposed.” was “uniformly Nor does the rule render ineligible for office displays member who enough interest to attend half his meetings. local’s
The Court relying heavily on Em- nevertheless, ployees, imposes holds that this rule qualifi- an unreasonable cation, violative of (e). §401 Hotel Employees involved “prior office” rule that limited union candidates for local office to previously members who had held elective union opinion office. Court’s in that emphasized case The prior-office effect of the rule was disqualify 93.1% membership. In respondent argues union’s case, that Hotel re- Employees per enunciated a se rule, “effects” quiring invalidation union elections an eligibility whenever disqualifies the union’s percentage all but a small membership. Although today the Court terms does adopt se per “effects” it comes close so. doing analysis, The fact of Local chose not 3489’s members 96.5% with comply given weight. its rule was controlling my of Hotel view, the Court has extended the reach far Employees beyond holding and basic rationale acknowledged that case. the rule there involved was Indeed, unique practice.” sport “virtually trade — in- deliberately It designed, at 505. was a rule S., leadership. opinion, the Court’s timated entrench Id., in Hotel general effect of the rule Moreover, at 499. adopted. was Employees predictable was the time the rule previously to members who held or By eligibility limiting large propor- disqualification of a held elective had inevitable membership purposeful was a tion of the structure of the rule itself. effect *10 today comparable the Court has no feature. before rule precluded eligibility. from Nor establishing member is No predicted, of the rule be as member can the effect in union requisite demonstrates the interest affairs common factor short, only to seek office. In the eligible Employees in Hotel and that prior-office between the rule percent- today similarity Court the before the members. effect was age ineligible one case the purpose perpetuating control predetermined for the from the whereas here the effect resulted insiders, a few perhaps the indifference —of the rank-and-file free choice— membership. Steelworkers,
In
(1973),
Brennan v.
“The self-evident restrictive character by holding’ accompanied office when the numerical rule, can- drastically eligible effect of the number of limiting Employees. Hotel justifies for the result in didates Secretary however, It erroneous to as conclude, is, blind Employees commands ad- contends, the rule per here, theory where, herence to a se even anyone and . does serve disqualify does itself . . objectives.” 489 F. at 889. legitimate 2d, purposes The court on to conclude that served went legitimate. rule are attendance today Although opinion of the Court discounts I Cir- weight given agree these with the purposes, to be Sixth meritorious facially they legitimate cuit that at serve least meetings; purposes: (i) encouraging mean- to demonstrate a (ii) requiring candidates office (iii) assuring affairs; union and its ingful interest opportunity office an that members who seek have had may argue become informed as union affairs. One *11 requiring attendance of the 36 meetings prior to the beyond election goes what necessary to serve these purposes. But this is a “judgment call” best left the un- ions themselves absent stronger showing of potential for case., abuse has than been made in this The record in this case is instructive. Twenty-three mem- bers eligible were run for office in election. These were members who were nominated and who also had complied with requirement. the attendance The record show, does not and indeed no many one how mem- knows, bers eligible were under the but who rule were not nomi- nated. Three competed candidates of presi- the office four for the unopposed three trustee and six ran dent, offices, for the Of remaining offices. the 10 officers six were elected, incumbents. Nonincumbents were elected to offices of vice president, recording and the minor secretary, treasurer, office of guide. history was no There of entrenched leader- ship practices evidence of restrictive union precluding free and democratic elections. the record to the Indeed, contrary. presidents Five different had been elected during preceding changes an estimated years, separate officers had occurred in four elections. the course of Bernard who to the complaint initiated this Frye, case subsequent won presidency Secretary, an 1970 and thereafter lost it.
In final the burden analysis, bears respondent, his entire “unreasonable,” the rule is rests proving an upon itself, case on facial attack that at best supported by attack a statistical test” “effects could at- ambiguous and one that invalidate almost purposes. requirement legitimate tendance served prove my respondent has failed view, I reverse rule is unreasonable. For these reasons, Appeals. of the Court judgment