(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.
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.
