News & Information

Information Center

Today's Headlines

Regulatory Updates

Topics In-Depth

Research Tools

Magazines and Newsletters

Quick Links

54th U.S. Annual Employee Benefits Conference

Article Search - INFOSOURCE®

Educational Programs Schedule

E-Learning Courses

Exhibit Opportunities

Glossary of Terms

InfoQuick

Jobs and Resumés

Pay Dues

Press Room

Reach Our Members

Home > Resources > News & Information > Regulatory Updates > Court Upholds DOL Reporting Requirements on Employer Payments to Unions

Court Upholds DOL Reporting Requirements on Employer Payments to Unions

According to a Department of Labor (DOL) press release, on May 5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed a challenge to the DOL's authority to require reports from attorneys who make payments to unions or union officials. The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) requires employers to file reports if, among other things, they provide money or other things of value to a union or a union officer or employee. In this case, Warshauer v. Chao, an attorney who had been appointed as a designated legal counsel by the United Transportation Union (UTU) sued to enjoin the secretary of labor from requiring him to file a Form LM-10 (Employer Report). Designated legal counsel are lawyers recommended by a union to its members for representation in workers' compensation, personal injury or other matters. The attorney challenged certain Web site advisories that the department's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) had issued in 2005 and 2006 to provide guidance on Form LM-10 reporting requirements. These included advisories stating that designated legal counsel who make certain payments must file Form LM-10 reporting the payments. The advisories also provided guidance that payments of $250 or less need not be reported. The Web site advisory made plain that designated legal counsel must file a Form LM-10 reporting payments from the lawyer to the union or its officials because union members have a right to evaluate whether a lawyer's presence on a list of designated legal counsel is based on merit rather than a financial relationship between the lawyer and union officials. The court held that the Web site advisories were interpretative guidance not subject to the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act as the plaintiff had argued. The court also found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff failed to support a determination that the advisories departed from previously established official policy concerning Form LM-10.

Print | Email |

Adjust to small text size

Adjust to medium text size

Adjust to large text size

© 2008 International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans