Labor-Management Standards Office January 2007 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

On December 22, 2002, the Department of Labor (Department) proposed revisions to Forms LM-2, LM-3, and LM-4, which are used by labor organizations to file annual financial reports required under Title II of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA or Act), 29 U.S.C. 401 et seq., with the Employment Standards Administration's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS). A portion of the proposed rule stated the Department's intent to revise its interpretation of an aspect of the definition of ``labor organization * * * deemed to be engaged in an industry affecting commerce'' under the LMRDA. After receiving and considering comments, the Department published its final rule on October 9, 2003. The interpretation in the final rule stated that intermediate bodies that are subordinate to a national or international labor organization that includes a labor organization will be covered by the LMRDA, even if the intermediate body's constituents are solely public sector local labor unions not covered by the Act. This interpretation of the LMRDA was challenged in federal district court by labor unions affected by the interpretation, and the court granted summary judgment in favor of the labor unions. Alabama Education Ass'n v. Chao, 2005 WL 736535 (D.D.C. Mar 31, 2005). On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment. Alabama Education Ass'n v. Chao, 455 F.3d 386 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The court of appeals held that the Department's interpretation was reviewable under deference principles established under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and that the statutory definition of ``labor organization * * * deemed to be engaged in an industry affecting commerce'' is ambiguous and subject to more than one permissible interpretation, including the Department's interpretation. 455 F.3d at 393, 396. The court also concluded, however, that the Department had failed to provide a ``reasoned analysis supporting its change of position'' and remanded the rule to the Department to provide such analysis. Id. at 396-397. The Department issues this Policy Statement in response to the court's remand order.