CFR > Title 29 - Labor > SUBTITLE B—Regulations Relating to Labor > CHAPTER IV—OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (parts 401 to 471) > SUBCHAPTER A—LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS (parts 401 to 453) > PART 452—GENERAL STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ELECTION PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959 > SUBPART E—Candidacy for Office; Reasonable Qualifications (§452.32 to §452.54) > 452.36—Reasonableness of qualifications.

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.

Code of Federal Regulations

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.