Standards of Conduct for Federal Sector Labor Organizations, 31929-31942 [E6-8626]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Office of Labor-Management Standards
• Labor-Management Standards Office

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31929-31942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8626]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of Labor-Management Standards

29 CFR Part 458

RIN 1215-AB48


Standards of Conduct for Federal Sector Labor Organizations

AGENCY: Office of Labor-Management Standards, Employment Standards 
Administration, Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (Department) proposed to revise the 
regulations applicable to Federal sector labor organizations subject to 
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), the

[[Page 31930]]

Foreign Service Act of 1980 (FSA), and the Congressional Accountability 
Act of 1995 (CAA) (referred to collectively as ``these Acts''). This 
document sets forth the Department's review of comments submitted by 
the public on the proposal, the Department's response to those 
comments, and the changes from the proposal that are embodied in a 
final rule.
    The Department will require each labor organization subject to 
these Acts to periodically inform their members of their rights as 
union members as set forth in the standards of conduct provisions of 
these Acts and their implementing regulations.\1\ Labor organizations 
subject to this rule must provide written notice to existing members 
within 90 days after the effective date of the regulation and to new 
members within 90 days of their joining the organization. Such 
notification must also be given to each member at three-year intervals. 
Notification may be made by hand delivery, regular mail, electronic 
mail (e-mail), or a combination of these methods as long as the method 
selected is reasonably calculated to reach all members. A labor 
organization is permitted, but not required, to include such notice 
with the organization's notice of election of officers if such notice 
is mailed to members at least every three years. If a labor 
organization has a Web site, the site must contain a link to the CSRA 
Union Member Rights, or, alternatively, provide the organization's own 
notice as long as the notice accurately states all of the CSRA 
standards of conduct provisions. OLMS will use the existing 
administrative mechanism in the standards of conduct regulations for 
resolving complaints related to this rule. Where OLMS determines after 
investigation that a violation has occurred and has not been remedied, 
OLMS will institute enforcement proceedings against the labor 
organization before the Department's Office of Administrative Law 
Judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To avoid unnecessary repetition, this final rule will refer 
to the standards of conduct provisions of the CSRA, the FSA, and the 
CAA and the Department's regulations implementing these provisions 
as the ``CSRA standards of conduct.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective on July 3, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Oshel, Director, Office of Policy, 
Reports, and Disclosure, Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5605, 
Washington, DC 20210, olms-public@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

    On November 3, 2004, the Department issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (69 FR 64226) proposing revisions of the regulations 
applicable to Federal sector labor organizations subject to the Civil 
Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 7120 (CSRA), the Foreign Service 
Act of 1980, 22 U.S.C. 4117(d) (FSA), and the Congressional 
Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1351(a)(1) (CAA). As the notice 
explained, the purpose of the revision is to require labor 
organizations subject to these Acts to periodically inform members of 
their democratic rights as set forth in the standards of conduct 
provisions of the Acts and their implementing regulations. These rights 
include, among others, the right to participate in union affairs, 
freedom of speech and assembly, and the right to nominate candidates 
for office and run for office. A summary description of these rights 
and other pertinent standards of conduct provisions can be found in the 
Department of Labor publication Union Member Rights and Officer 
Responsibilities under the Civil Service Reform Act, which is appended 
to this Final Rule.
    Before issuing this proposal, Department officials met with 
representatives of the regulated community, including unions and 
organizations advocating greater democracy within labor organizations, 
to hear their views on the need for the proposed rule and the likely 
impact of changes that might be proposed. The Department's proposal, 
developed with these discussions in mind, requested comments on 
numerous specific issues in order to obtain the views of the parties 
affected by the proposal and to fully inform the Department in 
developing the final rule.
    As noted in the Department's proposal, this rule amends the 
regulations for unions subject to the standards of conduct provisions 
of the CSRA, FSA and CAA to require such unions to inform members of 
the standards of conduct provisions found at 29 CFR parts 457-459. The 
CSRA standards of conduct regulations make certain provisions of the 
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 
U.S.C. 401 et seq. applicable to federal sector labor organizations. 
The standards incorporate portions of the reporting provisions of the 
LMRDA's Title II (compare 29 U.S.C. 431 with 29 CFR 458.3), the 
trusteeship provisions of Title III (compare 29 U.S.C. 461-466 with 29 
CFR 458.26-.28), the union democracy provisions of Title IV (compare 29 
U.S.C. 481 with 29 CFR 458.29), and the fiduciary obligations of Title 
V (compare 29 U.S.C. 501(a) with 29 CFR 458.31), among others.
    Most pertinent here, the standards of conduct regulations 
incorporate Title I of the LMRDA (Bill of Rights of Members of Labor 
Organizations) virtually verbatim. See 29 CFR 458.2. Union member 
rights protected by Title I of the LMRDA include the right to:
     Nominate candidates for union office;
     Vote in elections or referenda;
     Attend membership meetings and vote upon the business of 
union meetings;
     Meet and assemble freely with other members, and express 
views, arguments and opinions;
     Participate in setting rates of dues, fees, and 
assessments;
     File a lawsuit;
     Receive notice and a fair hearing before being 
disciplined; and
     Inspect or obtain copies of collective bargaining 
agreements between an agency-employer and the member's union (for 
members and other employees affected by the agreement).

29 U.S.C. 411-415. The standards of conduct regulations do not, 
however, incorporate the important protection found in section 105 of 
the LMRDA. Compare 29 U.S.C. 411-415 with 29 CFR 458.2. This provision 
states that ``every labor organization shall inform its members 
concerning the provisions of this Act.'' 29 U.S.C. 415. The 
Department's proposal would revise the standards of conduct regulations 
to correct this omission.
    When the comment period closed on January 3, 2005, OLMS had 
received over 750 comments, including 24 detailed, substantive comments 
from labor organizations, individual union officials, public interest 
and trade groups, and a Member of Congress, and over 700 copies of a 
form letter supporting the proposed rule. All the comments have been 
carefully reviewed and considered. The Department's analysis of the 
comments follows.

II. Comments on the Proposal and Responses to the Comments

A. General Comments

    In addition to many specific comments that are discussed in the 
sections that follow, many of which were from unions in opposition to 
the proposed regulation, the Department also received over 700 
identical comments from individuals in support

[[Page 31931]]

of the Department's proposed reform, stating: ``[t]his requirement is 
sorely needed to prevent federal employee unions from becoming personal 
fiefdoms in which a few powerful union officials control the 
organization * * * [i]nforming union members of their rights is an 
essential part of strengthening union democracy and protecting the 
federal civil service from corrupt union officials.'' Although the 
value to the Department of these comments was diminished by the 
individuals' failure to articulate whether they are union members or 
federal employees, the comments do show strong support among numerous 
individuals for the proposed reform.

B. The Secretary's Statutory and Regulatory Authority

    Under the CSRA, a Federal agency ``shall only accord recognition to 
a labor organization that is free from corrupt influences and 
influences opposed to basic democratic principles.'' 5 U.S.C. 7120(a). 
To avoid having to prove that it is free from corrupt influences, a 
public sector union must adopt governing documents that guarantee 
``democratic procedures and practices including provisions for periodic 
elections to be conducted subject to recognized safeguards and 
provisions defining and securing the rights of individual members to 
participate in the affairs of the organization, and to receive fair 
process in disciplinary proceedings.'' Id. The provisions must include 
the exclusion from union office individuals ``identified with corrupt 
influences,'' the prohibition of financial conflicts of interests on 
the part of union officers and agents, and the maintenance of fiscal 
integrity in the conduct of the affairs of the organization. Id. A 
union seeking to be the bargaining representatives of Federal employees 
must file financial reports with the Department, provide for bonding of 
union officials and employees, and adhere to trusteeship and election 
standards. 5 U.S.C. 7120(c). The Secretary implements these provisions 
through a grant rulemaking authority that authorizes regulations as are 
``necessary to carry out the purposes'' section 7120. These regulations 
are to ``conform generally to the principles applied to labor 
organizations in the private sector.'' 5 U.S.C. 7120(d). A second grant 
of rulemaking authority is found in section 7134, which authorizes 
rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of section 7120 just 
discussed. 5 U.S.C. 7134. The Standard of Conduct regulations 
promulgated under these grants are found in 5 CFR parts 457-459. A 
summary description of their provisions can be found in the Department 
of Labor publication Union Member Rights and Officer Responsibilities 
under the Civil Service Reform Act, which is appended to this Final 
Rule. The Final Rule adds another provision to these regulations 
requiring federal sector unions to provide notice to their member of 
the existing Standards of Conduct provisions.
    The International Association of Machinists (IAM) challenged the 
Secretary's authority to issue the proposed rule, asserting that 
section 105 requires notice of rights that are held only by private 
sector union members and its application to federal sector unions 
therefore falls outside of the Secretary's rulemaking authority.\2\ 
Specifically, the IAM argues that the CSRA does not grant public sector 
union members individual rights in the same manner as the LMRDA, and 
there are, thus, no rights of which union members can be notified. In 
support of its position, the IAM asserts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The legal authority for this notice of proposed rulemaking 
is the standards of conduct provisions of the CSRA, 29 U.S.C. 
7120(d), 7134, and the FSA, 22 U.S.C. 4117. These provisions 
expressly authorize the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor 
Management Relations to issue regulations implementing standards of 
conduct that conform generally to the principles applicable to labor 
organizations in the private sector. This position no longer exists 
and through a series of Secretary's Orders, most recently embodied 
in Order 4-2001, which was issued May 24, 2001, and published in the 
Federal Register on May 31, 2001 (66 FR 29656), the Assistant 
Secretary for Employment Standards has the authority and 
responsibility to carry out the standards, programs and activities 
under the CSRA, FSA and CAA. In addition, under the CAA, the Office 
of Compliance, U.S. Congress, has issued regulations, expressly 
approved by the House and Senate, providing that the Secretary is 
responsible for issuing decisions and orders on standards of conduct 
matters. See 142 Cong. Rec. S12062-01, S12074 (October 1, 1996); 142 
Cong. Rec. H10369-06, 10382 (September 12, 1996).

    [T]he first sentence of Section 7120(a) states a general 
requirement that Federal agencies shall only accord recognition to 
Unions that are free from corrupt influences. The second sentence 
provides that unions do not have to prove freedom from corrupt 
influences if their governing documents incorporate the standards 
set out in subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4). Thus, section 7120(a) 
effectively requires Federal-sector Unions to build the enumerated 
LMRDA-type rights into their constitutions, bylaws, and governing 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
policies.

    From the premise that a Federal employee's rights derive solely 
from the union's governing documents, the IAM concludes that public 
sector union members have no ``free standing rights under Section 
7120'' and, therefore, ``Section 105's purpose of alerting Union 
members to such external rights is simply absent.'' The Department's 
proposal is, therefore, ``ill-conceived'' and ``lack[s] statutory 
authority.'' The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), an 
affiliate of IAM, advances IAM's arguments in its comments.
    The IAM's argument that Federal sector union members possess only 
the rights embodied in the unions' governance documents is 
unpersuasive. Its related argument that section 105 exists only to 
provide notice of external, ``free-standing'' rights also is 
unconvincing. Contrary to the IAM's suggestion, section 7120 provides, 
by force of law, that unions representing Federal employees ensure:

The maintenance of democratic procedures and practices including 
provisions for periodic elections to be conducted subject to 
recognized safeguards and provisions defining and securing the 
rights of individual members to participate in the affairs of the 
organization, and to receive fair process in disciplinary 
proceedings.

5 U.S.C. 7120(a)(1). Congress chose to ensure such ``rights of 
individual members'' by encouraging unions to adopt these protections 
in their constitution rather than by direct regulation of the unions. 
But the result is precisely the same: every recognized public sector 
union member enjoys these protections by statute.
    In addition, section 7120 operates directly to regulate unions in a 
manner that preserves important union member rights. ``A labor 
organization which has or seeks recognition as a representative of 
employees under this chapter shall file financial and other reports * * 
*, provide for bonding of officials and employees of the organization, 
and comply with trusteeship and election standards.'' 5 U.S.C. 7120(c). 
By direct operation of law, therefore, labor unions representing 
federal employees must comply with stringent standards concerning full 
and accurate financial disclosure, responsible use of trusteeship 
authority, and fair and democratic elections. See 29 CFR 458.3 
(reporting requirements), 29 CFR 458.26 (purposes for which a 
trusteeship may be established), and 29 CFR 458.29 (election of 
officers). These requirements by necessity vest union members with 
individual rights. For example, a union's duty to hold a fair election 
necessarily encompasses a union member's right to speak freely, express 
views, and support the candidate of his or her choice. If the election 
did not encompass these rights, the union member may file a complaint 
that, if validated by an investigation, could result in a new election, 
supervised by the Department of Labor. As a final note, accepting the 
argument

[[Page 31932]]

that federal sector union members have no free-standing rights would 
require the Department to consider invalid its own regulation, 29 CFR 
458.2, which vests Federal sector union members with the same ``Bill of 
Rights'' afforded to private sector union members by the LMRDA. The 
Department declines to do so.
    Even if it were demonstrated that the CSRA does not provide Federal 
sector union members ``individual'' or ``free-standing rights,'' the 
Department would still reject IAM's argument because it is erroneously 
premised on the belief that section 105 requires unions to notify their 
members only of individual rights. On the contrary, section 105 
provides that ``every labor organization shall inform its members 
concerning the provisions of this Act.'' 29 U.S.C. 415. The language 
does not limit notice only to ``individual rights'' but is much more 
encompassing. This provision of the LMRDA includes, in addition to 
rights that IAM would consider free-standing (primarily relating to 
election and associational protections), numerous other substantive and 
procedural requirements and prohibitions. Thus, even if IAM were right 
that the CSRA provides union members with no free-standing rights, this 
would not affect the Secretary's statutory authority to require public 
sector unions to provide notice of the relevant provisions of the CSRA.
    The Department has ample statutory authority to require unions 
subject to the CSRA standards of conduct to notify their members of 
these provisions. By including fundamental protections within their 
governing documents, unions seeking to become a bargaining 
representative of Federal employees satisfy their obligation to 
demonstrate their freedom from corrupt influences. Despite IAM's 
suggestion to the contrary, it does not follow that Congress, in 
establishing this statutory framework, intended to deny the Secretary 
the authority to further regulate union governance. Indeed, the plain 
language of section 7120(d) demonstrates just the opposite. Section 
7120(d) reads: ``The Assistant Secretary shall prescribe such 
regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. 
Such regulations shall conform generally to the principles applied to 
labor organizations in the private sector.'' 5 U.S.C. 7120(d). 
Similarly, the Assistant Secretary is required by the CSRA to 
``prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of'' 
Chapter 71 (Labor-Management Relations) of Title 5 that are 
administered by her. 5 U.S.C. 7134. As the legislative history 
indicates, the rulemaking authority was meant to enable the Assistant 
Secretary to ``effectuate'' the statute, 5 U.S.C. 7120. See S. Rep. 95-
969, 107-108, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2723, 2829-30. The notion that sections 
7120(a)(1)-(4) reflect the sole obligations of unions covered by the 
CSRA would deny effect to section 7120(d), among other subsections, and 
ignore the interpretative maxim that a statute should not be construed 
in a way that renders a provision superfluous. See, e.g., United States 
v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538 (1955).
    A rule that requires unions to provide notice of the provisions of 
the CSRA is, to paraphrase the statute, necessary to fully realize the 
purposes of the CSRA and conforms generally to the principles 
applicable to private sector unions. 5 U.S.C. 7120(d). Notice is 
necessary because union member action is often required to ensure that 
unions comply with the provisions of the CSRA. A botched or stolen 
election cannot be set aside and rerun by the Department until a union 
member files a complaint. 29 CFR 458.29, 458.65. A union member who 
believes that his or her local union has been placed in trusteeship for 
a prohibited reason may file a complaint with OLMS, which, if well-
founded, will result in an enforcement action to lift the trusteeship. 
29 CFR 458.26-458.28, 458.53, 458.66(a). The financial reporting 
provisions are policed in part by union members who may, under certain 
circumstances, examine the union's books to verify the union's 
financial reports. 29 CFR 458.3; 29 CFR 403.8(a). The comments indicate 
that some unions do not adequately provide notice of the provisions of 
the CSRA to their members and that members are not versed in these 
provisions. Union members who are not aware of these laws will not 
likely take the steps needed to ensure that unions comply with these 
laws.
    The rule is also consistent with private sector principles. Private 
sector unions have, since 1959, been required by statute to provide 
their members with notice of the law applicable to them. Section 105 of 
the LMRDA requires every covered union ``to inform its members 
concerning the provisions of the Act.'' 29 U.S.C. 415. It is evident 
from this section that a rule requiring unions subject to the CSRA 
standards of conduct to inform members of their rights as union members 
and the responsibilities of their union officers ``conforms generally 
to principles applied to labor organizations in the private sector.''
    In its comments, the International Federation of Professional and 
Technical Engineers (IFPTE) stated that the NPRM fails to explain the 
absence of a provision in the CSRA comparable to section 105 of the 
LMRDA. IFPTE implies that this omission evidences an intention to 
relieve federal sector unions of any duty to notify their members of 
the provisions of the CSRA. The Department disagrees. IFPTE overlooks 
the state of the law pertaining to union regulation at the time the 
CSRA was enacted. In 1959, Congress enacted the LMRDA, complete with 
multiple titles imposing numerous prohibitions and requirements on 
labor unions and other entities. Public Law 86-257, September 14, 1959, 
73 Stat. 519-546. By the mid-1960s, the Department had promulgated 
detailed regulations implementing and interpreting the LMRDA. See 
generally 29 CFR Parts 401-453. Congress did not, and did not need to, 
codify in the CSRA detailed provisions already established in the LMRDA 
for private sector unions. Instead, Congress chose to enact broad 
standards, provide the Assistant Secretary with rulemaking authority, 
and instruct the Assistant Secretary to prescribe necessary regulations 
that conform generally to the principles applied to private sector 
labor unions. 29 U.S.C. 7120. Thus, the absence of any particular 
provision in the CSRA comparable to section 105 in the LMRDA does not 
mean that Congress did not intend the notification requirement to apply 
to unions covered by the CSRA.
    IAM and NFFE also argued that the proposed rule ``upset[s] the 
balance of rights, duties and responsibilities that Congress enacted in 
the CSRA'' by imposing a Federal obligation to highlight some CSRA 
rights over others. As discussed above, the notification required under 
the rule is within the authority provided the Department to effectuate 
the CSRA's standards of conduct. The Department acknowledges that the 
CSRA affords unions, their members, and Federal agencies important 
rights and obligations not addressed by the rule; however, the 
Department does not have express authority to require unions to apprise 
members of all their rights under the CSRA, but only those rights 
specifically under the authority of the Assistant Secretary, i.e., the 
standards of conduct for labor organizations. See 5 U.S.C. 7120(d) 
(Assistant Secretary has authority to carry out purposes of section 
7120 by rules that conform generally to private sector principles); 5 
U.S.C. 7134 (Assistant Secretary has authority to issue rules to carry 
out the applicable provisions of Chapter 71 (Labor-Management 
Relations) of Title 5). Furthermore, the Department rejects the notion 
that informing members

[[Page 31933]]

about their rights as union members somehow diminishes the other rights 
and obligations imposed on unions, union members, and agency management 
under the CSRA.
    The IFPTE notes that the Department proposes to prescribe the 
content of the notice and the frequency and method of its distribution, 
thus imposing a greater burden on Federal unions than private unions. 
The IFPTE asserts that the Department ``offers no factual basis for the 
imposition of these unique and burdensome requirements upon Federal 
sector unions.'' The Department disagrees that the final rule lacks 
factual or legal support. The comments provide factual support for the 
findings supporting the final rule, as does the common sense 
proposition that increased notice leads to increased awareness. The 
particular requirements of the rule are discussed below, along with the 
comments and reasoning that support the Department's decision. In 
addition, the final rule also has ample legal justification. In Thomas 
v. International Ass'n of Machinists, 201 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2000), a 
labor organization took the position that a notice it provided to its 
members forty years ago, shortly after the passage of the LMRDA, 
satisfied its section 105 notice obligations. The Court of Appeals 
rejected this position, stating that the democratic principles in the 
statute ``are meaningless * * * if members do not know of their 
existence [because] if a member does not know of his rights, he cannot 
exercise them.'' Machinists, 201 F.3d at 520. As stated in the 
Department's proposal, at 69 FR 64227, the reasoning in Machinists also 
applies to unions governed by the CSRA. Furnishing a notice of the CSRA 
standards of conduct provisions to union members furthers the 
fundamental policies of Federal labor law. Union members aware of these 
provisions are more likely to monitor the conduct of their union and 
its officers as it affects their rights and interests as members; such 
information also equips them to help remedy any breach of the union's 
obligations. Union members who are not informed or aware of their 
rights are less able and less likely to take such action.
    The Department acknowledges that the final rule imposes on Federal 
sector unions more precise requirements concerning the timing and 
content of the notice than have been expressly set forth in the law 
governing private sector labor organizations. The Department believes 
that requiring unions of Federal employees to notify their members of 
the provisions of the CSRA is squarely within the rulemaking authority 
the Assistant Secretary has been granted, as discussed immediately 
above. The Department has also concluded that providing precise 
guidelines on the particulars of the notice merely effectuates the 
notice requirement and constitutes a reasonable administrative 
construction of the requirement. Clear instructions provide detail that 
will assist unions in complying with the law. The Department rejects 
any implication that the final rule is invalid because no court has 
heretofore imposed comparable terms on private sector unions. The 
relevant statute requires that CSRA regulations merely ``conform 
generally to the principles applied to labor organizations in the 
private sectors,'' and nowhere requires that the regulations adhere 
precisely in every particular to each articulation of, or omission in, 
private sector requirements. See 29 U.S.C. 7120(d).

C. The Need for Notice to Members

    The NPRM asked whether union members already receive adequate 
notice of their rights as union members. The Department received 
relatively few comments from unions on whether members already receive 
adequate notice of their rights. The IFPTE stated that it ``fully 
supports the principle that it is important to educate union members 
about their statutory rights, as employees, citizens and union members, 
and devotes appropriate resources to educate members about all these 
issues, including their rights and obligations as union members.'' The 
IFPTE did not, however, describe the extent of the ``resources'' it 
devotes to this effort, the content of the information it provides to 
its members, or the frequency with which it provides this notice. NFFE 
asserted that ``most unions'' give new members ``membership 
information'' and that ``information is consistently and continuously 
posted on union websites.'' NFFE did not, however, describe the content 
of the information it or other unions provide their members, or the 
frequency with which this information is provided. A letter from the 
IAM, provided as an attachment to NFFE's comments, asserted that it 
takes the following steps: ``[W]e now supply DOL's own summary of the 
LMRDA to each new member, publish that summary in issues of our 
magazine, and carry it at all times on our website (clearly accessed 
from our home page).'' The Department notes, however, that IAM may not 
be representative of other unions in that its commendable practices 
stemmed from a lawsuit against it by one of its members.
    NFFE and the IFPTE asserted that members already have adequate 
notice of their rights. Neither of these unions, however, submitted 
copies of any information provided to their members, nor did they 
suggest that any such information is similar to, or as comprehensive as 
that contained in, the CSRA Union Member Rights notice. Other than IAM, 
no commenter included a copy of, quotation from, or link to, any 
statement of members' rights on a labor organization's Web site (or 
other union resource).
    On the other hand, the National Right to Work Legal Defense 
Foundation (NRTWF) stated that ``the basic provisions of the NPRM are 
essential.'' The NRTWF asserted that ``at least one union believes its 
legal obligation was satisfied with notices issued to union members two 
generations ago.'' The Association for Union Democracy (AUD) argued 
that the proposed rule does not go far enough and that there should be 
a rule mandating inclusion of a rights notice in union constitutions. 
AUD also supported giving full written notice to new union members. One 
union official supported the regulation because ``members are not 
informed of their rights.'' Congressman Sam Johnson, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce of the United States House of 
Representatives (Congressman Johnson), stated that ``too many of 
today's union members are wholly unaware of these rights, as too many 
unions have failed to provide their members with the notice of their 
rights as contemplated in section 105 of the LMRDA.'' As noted, the 
Department also received 700 form comments, stating that the notice is 
``sorely needed.''
    Many individuals and institutional commenters claim that new 
members do not receive adequate notice. A union officer wrote that he 
had ``held an office in a local union for over 25 years, [and] not once 
during my tenure has my organization provided notice or training 
concerning my rights.'' A union member commented that members are 
``never'' apprised of their rights as union members. The Americans for 
Tax Reform wrote that ``[r]eminding ordinary union members that they 
own the union they pay dues to is a great step for worker rights and 
democracy.'' The AUD stated that by enacting the proposed regulation 
``the DOL will be ensuring that federal sector union members receive 
the same information about their rights as private sector union members 
are already entitled to under [section] 105 of the [LMRDA].''

[[Page 31934]]

    After considering all the comments, the Department has concluded 
that each labor organization subject to the CSRA must inform its 
members of the relevant provisions of the CSRA. In the Department's 
view, there is no persuasive argument that members of federal sector 
unions are less deserving of such information than members of unions 
solely representing private sector employees. The comments indicate 
that unions subject to the proposed rule, as a general matter, do not 
already provide such information of their own volition to their 
members. The comments also indicate that union members, as a general 
matter, are not already aware of the provisions of the CSRA. The 
Department has concluded that notice is necessary to ensure that 
Federal sector union members are provided a basic understanding of 
their rights as union members and the responsibilities of their 
officers.

D. Content of the Notice

    The NPRM asked whether the CSRA Member Rights publication clearly 
and accurately states all union member democratic rights. The NPRM also 
asked what specific changes to the language would improve the accuracy 
or clarity of the notice.
    The Department received comments recommending specific changes to 
the document, including the following: the Department should delete the 
listing of union officer responsibilities, delete the statement 
concerning trusteeships, and delete the statement requiring unions to 
provide copies of collective bargaining agreements. Other comments 
suggested that the Department should add statements regarding a union's 
duty of fair representation, an individual's right to join or not join 
a union, the asserted right to ``limit membership'' to financial core 
matters, the need to exhaust internal union proceedings in order to 
obtain redress for a violation of a member's rights, and the right to 
accurate information about union finances. We discuss each of these 
points in turn.
    NFFE stated union officer responsibilities should not be included 
because these duties concern internal union policy, not ``members' 
rights.'' The Department disagrees. Members' rights include the 
obligations owed members by the officers of their union. Even if the 
term ``members' rights'' could be construed in the narrow sense 
suggested by NFFE, the notification is designed to apprise members 
about all of the relevant CSRA standards of conduct, rather than simply 
membership rights. In the Department's view, ``Union Member Rights and 
Officer Responsibilities'' better conveys the purpose of the 
notification than a title in which ``standards of conduct'' is the 
focal point, as a commenter urged, notwithstanding the longstanding use 
of the term in Federal sector labor relations.
    NFFE further stated that ``the requirement to provide copies of 
collective bargaining agreements to dues paying and non-dues paying 
members is not a legal requirement under 5 U.S.C., Chapter 71.'' The 
obligation that a union provide copies of the collective bargaining 
agreement on request to any member of the bargaining unit has long been 
established by this Department's regulations. See 29 CFR 458.3. This 
rule was adopted in 1980, as part of an overall effort to update the 
Department's responsibilities following the CSRA's 1978 enactment. The 
obligation existed under regulations promulgated under E.O. 11491, as 
amended, the antecedent authority governing labor-management relations 
in the Federal service. See 29 CFR 204.2(d) (1979) (indicating source 
as 40 FR 19992 (1975)). Moreover, this requirement is the analog to the 
LMRDA section 104 obligation of unions ``to forward a copy of each 
collective bargaining agreement * * * to any employee who requests such 
a copy * * *'' 29 U.S.C. 415, 414. For these reasons, the Department 
has determined that the inclusion of this statement in the members' 
rights notification is appropriate.
    NFFE stated that the notice should include a statement concerning 
an employee's right to join a union. Three organizations (NRTWF, 
Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), and Stop Union Political Abuse 
(SUPA)) recommended that the notice contain a statement concerning an 
employee's right not to join a union. Without regard to any possible 
merit of including such statements in the notice, the right to join or 
not join a Federal sector union is chiefly enforced by the Federal 
Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) and is outside the jurisdiction of 
this Department.
    NFFE contended that the Department lacked the authority to state 
that ``[a] union may not be placed in trusteeship by a parent body 
except for those reasons stated in the standards of conduct 
regulations.'' NFFE claimed that this statement is inconsistent with 
three Federal courts of appeals decisions (Reed v. Sturdivant, 176 F. 
3d 1051 (8th Cir. 1999); Smith v. Office & Professional Employees 
International Union, 821 F.2d 355 (6th Cir. 1987); New Jersey County & 
Mun. Council #61 v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
Employees, 478 F.2d 1156 (3rd Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 
(1973)). The Department believes that the statement in question 
accurately summarizes the restrictions on trusteeships under the CSRA, 
as articulated in the Department's existing regulations. See 29 CFR 
458.26. The substantive requirements under the CSRA conform generally 
to the LMRDA. Only the enforcement mechanisms are different. As stated 
in Reed v. Sturdivant, ``After two circuits construed Title III [of the 
LMRDA] as not applying to trusteeships imposed upon local unions of 
federal employees, Congress responded by enacting the CSRA, which 
mandates the same substantive standards but is enforced by exclusively 
administrative remedies.* * *'' 176 F.3d at 1054. For these reasons, 
the Department has decided to retain unchanged the statement that ``[a] 
union may not be placed in trusteeship by a parent body except for 
those reasons specified in the standards of conduct regulations.''
    The NRTWF and SUPA requested that the Department include in the 
required notice that the union has a duty to fairly represent all 
employees in the bargaining unit and to charge dues only for ``core'' 
union purposes, i.e., for matters such as collective bargaining, 
contract administration, and the adjustment of grievances. The duty of 
fair representation is not a provision within the authority of the 
Department. Although the duty is set forth in the CSRA, this duty 
arises independent of an employee's membership in a union and the duty 
is enforced by the FLRA, not this Department. For these reasons, the 
Department believes it would be inappropriate to include such 
statements in the required notice. Similarly, the Department believes 
it would be inappropriate to include a statement concerning ``core'' 
union responsibilities. The Department is not persuaded that the 
concept of financial core membership is applicable to Federal sector 
union members because a union shop is not permitted under the CSRA and, 
in any event, any claimed violation would fall within the authority of 
the FLRA, not this Department.
    For similar reasons, the Department rejects SUPA's related 
recommendation that the notice include the statement that members 
possess the ``right to clear, concise, and accurate financial 
information * * *, especially for * * * expenditures on ``non-core'' 
activities.'' The Department believes that the CSRA Union Member Rights 
accurately identifies a union's obligation to provide financial 
information to its members as relevant to the CSRA provisions for which 
the Assistant

[[Page 31935]]

Secretary has responsibility. And, even assuming that there is a 
relevant distinction between charges for ``core'' and ``non-core'' 
activities in the Federal sector, the Department has not been persuaded 
that it possesses the authority to require unions subject to this rule 
to provide any accounting to members other than those that conform 
generally to the principles already prescribed by Title II of the 
LMRDA.
    The NRTWF also suggested that the notice should be denominated the 
``Rights of Represented Employees and Union Officer Responsibilities 
under the Civil Service Reform Act'' because non-union member 
bargaining unit employees have the same rights to representation as 
members. The NRTWF would require unions to send the notices to all 
employees in the bargaining unit it represents, members and nonmembers 
alike. Protecting representation rights, however, is not one of the 
purposes of section 7120 and not one of the provisions of Chapter 71 
that is applicable to the Assistant Secretary. 5 U.S.C. 7120(c), 7134. 
Thus, there is no express rulemaking authority to issue such a 
regulation. The Department is not persuaded that unions should be 
required either to include in a notice to their own members a statement 
that primarily concerns the rights of nonmembers or that the union 
should be required to bear the expense of providing information to 
nonmembers (even assuming that the union had addresses or an 
alternative means to mail notice to them).
    The EFF recommended that unions should be required to use specific 
language, developed by the Department, in order to ensure that members 
are given proper notice of their rights. Another commenter, an officer 
of a Federal union, objected, ``If you allow the unions to abbreviate 
the statement, some would also abbreviate the rights.'' On the other 
hand, NTEU, and other unions, urged the Department to permit unions to 
devise their own language in order to correct perceived omissions in 
the notice or provide information tailored to the unique needs of each 
union and its membership. After considering the comments, the 
Department concludes that it is appropriate to provide unions the 
alternative opportunity to devise their own notice. Although use of the 
Department-prepared notice ensures uniformity by providing a minimum 
compliance standard, uniformity is also its weakness. Such a notice 
must of necessity be generic--without any tie to a union's particular 
internal practices or procedures. By developing its own notice, a union 
may choose to apprise members of their specific rights under the 
union's governing documents, and the duties owed by officers and the 
members to the union and each other at the same time it informs members 
of the provisions of the CSRA. Given the Department's authority to 
undertake its own investigation of union compliance with the 
notification requirement and its ability to prosecute violations, the 
Department believes that it can oversee union practices in devising 
language and, if proven necessary, quickly undertake corrective action 
without any significant loss of information to members. At the same 
time, the Department determined that it was appropriate to make 
explicit that the standards to be identified in a union-developed 
notice include, at a minimum, each of the standards listed in the OLMS 
publication appended to this document. To accomplish this result, the 
text of the final rule now clarifies that the union-prepared notice 
must accurately state the CSRA provisions as they appear in CSRA Union 
Member Rights.
    The NRTWF stated that the notice should include statements that 
union members have the right to resign their membership and to revoke 
their dues authorization. Although the NRTWF correctly states that 
union members have these rights, the purpose of the notice is to inform 
members generally of the standards of conduct provisions in the CSRA 
and the Department's regulations, not to provide an exhaustive list of 
union member rights, as recognized by the courts or other authorities. 
Similarly, as discussed above, the Department was not expressly 
authorized by Congress to prescribe rules that would more generally 
require unions to apprise members of their collective bargaining and 
other rights and obligations under the CSRA.
    NFFE and NTEU recommended that the notice contain a statement that 
``employees should exhaust internal union administrative procedures 
prior to seeking department relief regarding the election of 
officers.'' In crafting the proposed rule, the Department considered 
the inclusion of a statement specifically alerting union members that 
they may be required to ``exhaust'' internal procedures before 
obtaining relief under the standards of conduct provisions. The 
Department concluded that a relatively complete yet succinct statement 
of the exhaustion principle could not be accomplished through a summary 
notice and that the very term ``exhaustion'' might be confusing to some 
individuals. For these reasons, the Department instead included the 
following statement in the notice. ``If you need additional information 
* * * please contact OLMS * * *. You should also refer to 29 CFR 457.1-
459.5, and your union's constitution and bylaws for information on 
union procedures, timelines, and remedies.'' The Department's view 
remains that this approach is preferable to an attempt to include even 
a truncated statement of the exhaustion principle in the notice. 
Furthermore, as NTEU noted, a union may choose to include such 
information in a notice of its own devising. This approach would allow 
a union to explain to its members the union's particular procedures and 
time constraints applicable to a member's claims, a choice left 
available to unions under the final rule.

E. Dissemination of the Notice

    The NPRM proposed that labor organizations subject to the CSRA 
standards of conduct may meet their duty to inform members about their 
rights by any method as long as it was reasonably calculated to reach 
all members. The NPRM also solicited comments from the public with 
regard to the following two issues: (i) Whether a posting, either 
permanent or periodic, at a union's offices and on agency bulletin 
boards to which the union has access by virtue of its status as 
bargaining representative would adequately apprise members of their 
rights as union members; and (ii) whether a union which has a Web site 
must be required to include a link to CSRA Union Member Rights or the 
union's own notice.
    A common theme in the comments received by the Department was that 
unions should be required to use a combination of methods to 
disseminate notice of members' rights. For example, Congressman Johnson 
urged the Department to issue a rule that would require unions to 
incorporate such notices in their constitutions, post notices at union 
offices and on bulletin boards, and deliver the notice by e-mail where 
possible. The SUPA recommended that a ``combination of communication 
methods'' is preferable. It suggested that unions should provide ``(1) 
verbal and written notice during new member orientation; (2) a mailing 
to all members with election notices; (3) e-mail notification; and (4) 
bulletin board posting.''
    The Department has concluded that notification to individual 
members must be in writing. The Department also has concluded that a 
union must use personal delivery, regular mail, or electronic mail, 
alone or in

[[Page 31936]]

combination, to provide notification to members. Further, if a union 
has a Web site it must also include such notification on the Web site 
or provide a link to the CSRA Union Member Rights. The Department 
believes that providing such information on a Web site and posting it 
on bulletin boards will prove beneficial to members; however, in the 
Department's view, these resources, either alone or in combination, are 
inadequate as the sole means of informing members about their 
membership rights. Each of these points is discussed in greater detail 
below.
1. Bulletin Board Posting
    The NPRM asked whether a posting at a union's offices and on agency 
bulletin boards would adequately apprise members of their rights as 
union members. Most of the comments received on this issue expressed 
the general view that such posting would be inadequate as a primary 
method of providing notice. NTEU indicated that posting alone would not 
reach members who spend most or all of their time at third-party 
worksites or other sites separate from their employer's premises. NTEU 
stated that Web site posting alone is adequate notice to members and 
stated that unions without Web sites should be required to post notices 
in union offices and on agency bulletin boards.
    Other comments identified flaws in using posting as a primary means 
of providing notice. One commenter argued that ``all too often the 
union bulletin board is not placed in a strategic location, because 
management often has control over exactly where that bulletin board is 
placed.'' The AUD noted that it would be too easy for a notice to be 
covered up or removed from a cluttered bulletin board. This 
organization further noted that ``monitoring union compliance with the 
requirements of the final rule would be difficult, if not impossible, 
given the number of bulletin boards in countless government offices and 
union halls.'' One comment stated the concern that if such notices were 
posted in or near union offices members observed reading such notices 
could become ``prime targets for retaliation.'' The comments, however, 
generally supported posting as a supplement to other methods. For 
example, the EFF suggested that a permanent posting would be a good 
supplement to individual notice to members.
    The Department has concluded that posting the members' rights 
notice on bulletin boards to which a union has access is less likely 
than other methods to ensure that members will be adequately apprised 
of their rights. As discussed below, a mailing to individual members is 
far more likely to reach individual members than a posting. The 
Department has also considered and rejected the comment suggesting 
bulletin board posting as an alternative to Web site posting when the 
union does not maintain a Web site. The commenter proposed this idea 
while arguing that Web site notice was sufficient alone, and that 
bulletin board posting would be required only for unions without a Web 
site. The Department has chosen to require direct, individual notice to 
members, and it is doubtful that the commenter would support bulletin 
board posting as a supplemental measure. In any event, the drawbacks of 
bulletin board posting in terms of location, accessibility, visual 
clutter, and compliance monitoring make this an ineffective means for 
disseminating notice.
2. Web Site Posting
    The Department proposed that if a union maintains a Web site, it 
must include as part of the site a notification to members of their 
rights as union members. Under the proposal, a union could choose to 
develop its own notice or include a link to CSRA Union Member Rights. 
The comments expressed general support for the proposal, but noted some 
concerns.
    IFPTE argued that its Web site ``plays a pivotal role'' in 
communications with its members: ``It's reasonable to expect that Web 
site notification will be extremely effective at keeping members 
informed of their rights as union members.'' IFPTE, as well as NTEU, 
argued that notification on the union's Web site, by itself, is 
adequate to apprise members of their rights as union members.
    The AUD supported the Web site posting as one method of 
notification, stating that ``the financial burden these requirements 
would impose on affected unions would be minimal, amounting to mere 
pennies per union member covered.'' AUD cited Arthur B. Shostak, The 
Cyberunion Handbook: Transforming Labor Through Computer Technology 4 
(2002) for the proposition that ``by January 2000, some 60 percent of 
union homes already had at least one computer * * * and that percentage 
is undoubtedly much higher five years later.'' Another commenter stated 
that information is ``consistently and continuously'' posted on his 
union's Web site. One union urged the Department to ``allow federal 
sector unions to comply by providing notice via the parent union Web 
site or the subordinate body Web site.'' It further affirmed that ``Web 
site notice has the advantage of being continuing in nature, readily 
accessible, and inexpensive for the union to maintain.'' Similarly, 
another commenter indicated that Web site posting would ``keep 
administrative costs at a minimum while still informing members of 
their rights.''
    On the other hand, one comment stated that Web site posting denies 
information to members without Internet access and members who belong 
to unions that do not maintain a Web site. Another indicated that his 
union's Web site is difficult to navigate, and another noted his 
union's difficulty in keeping its Web site current.
    While Web posting is continuous and would supplement periodic 
mailing of notice to members, the Department has concluded that Web 
posting is not adequate as the sole means for disseminating notice to 
members. Despite the growing availability of Internet access and the 
public's familiarity with this technology, it appears that there still 
may be a significant number of members who lack access to their union's 
Web site or possess only a limited ability to navigate the site. Each 
member of a union should receive notification of his or her rights, a 
purpose that cannot be achieved if Web posting is the only source of 
this information.
    Even though the Department rejects Web posting as the sole means of 
disseminating notice to members, the Department believes that Web site 
posting is an effective, efficient, and inexpensive means to provide 
members with supplemental and continuing notice of their rights. 
Furthermore, the Department recognizes that union members, like other 
citizens, increasingly turn to the Internet to obtain basic information 
from, and transact business with, organizations to which they belong or 
otherwise interact. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that if a 
labor organization has a Web site it must include a notice of members' 
rights on the Web site. Web site posting is only a requirement for 
unions who maintain Web sites; unions without Web sites will not be 
required to develop them in order to satisfy the notice requirement.
    Finally, one comment suggested that the Department should include 
on its Web site ``questions and answers'' that would more fully address 
union members' rights. The Department will be providing compliance 
assistance to unions and members and plans to add to the OLMS Web site 
a ``Frequently Asked Questions'' section relating to the CSRA standards 
of conduct.

[[Page 31937]]

3. Reproducing Notice in the Union's Constitution and Bylaws
    The NPRM solicited comments on the following issues: (i) Whether a 
statement of members' rights should be required as an appendix to a 
union's constitution and bylaws, (ii) whether and how a union's 
constitution and bylaws are now made available to members, and (iii) 
whether including the notice in a union's constitution and bylaws and 
maintaining proof that each member had received a copy should provide a 
``safe harbor.''
    Comments were generally supportive of a rule requiring unions to 
incorporate the statement of a union member's rights in union 
constitutions and bylaws. Two organizations (SUPA and AUD) urged the 
Department to adopt the requirement that a summary of members' rights 
and officers' responsibilities be included as an appendix to the 
constitutions of covered labor organizations. The AUD explained that 
whenever members have problems with their unions, they turn to the 
constitution for guidance, and that requiring the inclusion of such 
rights would be a simple, effective, and inexpensive way to comply with 
the notice requirement. Other comments, although supporting the 
incorporation of the member's rights notice as an appendix to a union's 
constitution, expressed concern that union members encounter difficulty 
in obtaining copies of the union's constitution and bylaws.
    Other comments rejected any rule requiring unions to incorporate 
the statement of a union member's rights in union constitutions and 
bylaws. NTEU expressed concern that requiring unions to include the 
notice in this manner ``interfere[s] with the union's internal 
affairs.'' NTEU also observed that ``such a requirement would probably 
not prove very effective in informing members of their rights as union 
members''; in its view, members are more likely to learn their rights 
by ``clicking on a button on the union's Web site that leads them 
directly to a statement of union members' rights.'' Other comments 
suggested that a union constitution was inappropriate as a resource to 
educate members about their rights because the documents may be lengthy 
and difficult to follow.
    Four comments generally opposed a regulation that would allow 
unions a ``safe harbor'' by including a members' rights notice in their 
constitutions. One commenter argued that ``[t]o give someone a copy of 
the constitution and then expect the union to be relieved of its 
obligation forever is not a practical method of ensur[ing] that people 
know and continue to know or be aware of their right[s].'' This 
commenter suggested that a union could comply with the notice 
requirement if it ``gave out copies of the constitution once every 
three years, and alternated that with just a mailed notice.''
    The Department is not persuaded that it would be appropriate to 
require unions to include a statement of members' rights as an appendix 
to a union's constitution and bylaws. In the Department's view, such a 
requirement, absent a more compelling showing than supplied by the 
comments, would be an unwarranted intrusion in the union's internal 
affairs. The constitution and bylaws provide the foundation for the 
union's existence and reflect the views of its founders and governing 
body on the essential terms of the union's governance. The Department 
believes that these considerations counsel against a Department-
mandated requirement that unions include a statement of member rights 
in their constitutions. Furthermore, the comments about the utility and 
availability of the constitution have raised some questions about the 
sole reliance on an appendix to a union's constitution to apprise 
members of their rights. The Department is concerned about the 
assertions that union members have difficulty in obtaining copies of 
their union's constitution. The Department, however, is not persuaded 
by the argument that a union's choice to include a statement of rights 
as an appendix to its constitution would be infirm because of the 
length of the constitution or the impracticality of relying on it as a 
statement of a union member's rights. In the Department's view, a union 
would satisfy its obligation under the final rule if it chooses to mail 
the constitution with a statement of rights as an appendix to its 
members as the means of providing the required individual notification.
    Furthermore, the Department has not been persuaded that the final 
rule should provide a ``safe harbor'' for unions that include notice of 
member rights in their constitutions or bylaws. As noted, the inclusion 
of a statement in a union's constitution, by itself, does not guarantee 
that the information has been conveyed to union members.
4. E-Mailing Notice to Union Members
    The NPRM asked whether sending a notice by e-mail would be 
acceptable if members have provided their e-mail addresses to the union 
or the union is permitted to use an agency e-mail system to contact its 
members. The comments expressed three concerns about the use of e-mail: 
Its lack of availability to some members, the impermanency of 
individual e-mail addresses, and the difficulty of documenting the 
transmission and receipt of messages. Congressman Johnson and EFF urged 
that e-mail is acceptable only as a supplement, not an alternative, to 
formal written notice by regular mail. To avoid some potential 
problems, a commenter suggested use of the employer-agency's e-mail 
system because of its ability to provide receipt of delivery.
    The Department believes that e-mail provides an acceptable method 
by which a union may provide notification to its members. E-mail can be 
an effective, efficient, and inexpensive means for providing members 
with notice of their rights. Just as a union that chooses to provide 
notice by U.S. mail must maintain a current list of member addresses, a 
union that chooses to send notice by e-mail must maintain an updated 
list of members' e-mail addresses. A labor organization that relies on 
e-mail to provide notice has the burden of proving that notice has been 
sent to an operational e-mail address of the member to whom the message 
is directed. For this reason, the Department encourages unions to 
maintain records in electronic or other format to show when and to whom 
the e-mails have been sent and notification that the e-mail has been 
received, or is undeliverable. Where a union does not have a member's 
e-mail address on file or an e-mail is ``returned'' as undeliverable, 
it must provide notification to the member by hand delivery or regular 
mail.
    The Department does not require that a union utilize a member's 
personal e-mail address to provide notification. If an agency permits 
the union to use the agency e-mail system for this purpose, the union 
may choose to utilize this avenue of communication. If the union 
chooses to use the agency's system, it must document--either by its own 
means or the agency's--when and to whom the e-mails have been sent and 
that the e-mail has been received, or was ``returned'' as 
undeliverable. The Department, however, lacks the authority to direct 
an agency to permit the use of its e-mail system for such purpose, and 
the Department offers no view on whether an agency may or should permit 
such use.

F. Timing of the Notice

    The NPRM asked: (i) Whether notice should be given to each member 
within a certain period of time after the effective date of the rule, 
(ii) how soon notice should be given to new members, (iii) how 
frequently a periodic notice

[[Page 31938]]

should be given, and (iv) whether inclusion of a members' rights notice 
in the notice of nominations and elections for 3, 4, and 5-year 
election cycles would be sufficient notice.
1. Initial Notice After the Rule Becomes Effective
    The NPRM sought comment concerning what would constitute a 
reasonable amount of time to allow unions to provide the first 
notification to members under the proposed rule. Congressman Johnson 
and the AUD supported initial notice within a 90-day period after the 
effective date. The EFF stated that 30 to 60 days would be a sufficient 
time. While IFPTE and NFFE argued against any notice, they recommended 
that if the rule was issued that unions should be given one year to 
develop a notification method. An individual union official stated that 
unions should be allowed one year to provide notice. Neither the unions 
nor the union official explained why unions needed this amount of time. 
NTEU also recommended that unions be allowed one year to provide such 
notice; it explained that this amount of time would enable the union to 
establish an appropriate schedule for providing the notice at three-
year intervals.
    While some commenters supported a shorter period, in the 
Department's view, a provision that unions provide initial notification 
to members within 90 days of the rule's effective date allows unions a 
reasonable amount of time to prepare for, and comply with, the new 
requirement. Since the rule does not take effect until 30 days after 
publication, unions actually will have 120 days within which to prepare 
the notice to their members, determine the distribution method or 
methods, and update the necessary address lists. This timeframe allows 
national unions, if they so choose, sufficient time to prepare notice 
language, either to be mailed directly to their affiliates' members or 
to serve as a model for their affiliates' use in providing notice to 
members. Moreover, if a union chooses to use the Department's model 
notice, there will be no time involved in this step of the process. 
Unions are already required to maintain home addresses of union members 
in order to comply with the rules governing notice of elections. 29 CFR 
458.29. Unions that maintain a Web site must comply with the additional 
requirement of posting the statement of members' rights on the Web site 
or provide a link to the notice posted on the OLMS Web site. The amount 
of time involved in accomplishing this task, as distinct from preparing 
the text of the notice, is estimated to be approximately 15 minutes, 
and thus does not materially affect the selection of a timeframe.
2. Notice to New Members
    The NPRM sought comment concerning how soon a union would be 
required to provide notice to new members. Only one comment was 
received on