U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Labor-Management Standards
Division of Enforcement
Washington, DC 20210
(202) 693-0143 Fax: (202) 693-1343

April 1, 2011


This Statement of Reasons is in response to your complaint dated December 13, 2010
filed with the United States Department of Labor , alleging that violations of Title IV of
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. §§
481-484, occurred in connection with the American Postal Workers Union (APWU),
Local 190 election of officers on October 8, 2010.

The Department has conducted an investigation of your allegations. As a result of the
investigation, the Department has concluded that there was no violation that may have
affected the outcome of the election.

You alleged that the Local failed to comply with your requests to distribute campaign
literature on August 27, September 3 and September 4, 2010. Section 401(c) of the Act
imposes a duty on unions to “comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate to
distribute by mail or otherwise at the candidate’s expense campaign literature in aid of
such person’s candidacy.” 29 U.S.C. § 481(c). The Local refused to comply with your
August 27th request because its officers were attending the APWU National Convention
out of state and with your September 4th request because it fell on a Saturday when the
Local’s office was closed. The investigation did not establish that you made a
September 3rd request to the Local.

Your requests were not unreasonable. Thus, the Local violated the Act when it refused
your requests to distribute literature. However, in order to be actionable, a violation
must not have been remedied and must have “affected the outcome of an election.” 29

U.S.C. § 482(b), (c)(2). Here, the Local offered you alternative mailing dates both before
and after your requested dates. Instead of making a mailing on one of the available
dates offered to you by the Local, you chose to make your own campaign mailing. By
doing so, you remedied the violation and eliminated any effect that it might have had
on the outcome. Thus, there was no violation that had an effect on the outcome of the

Page 2 of 2

You also allege that the Local refused your request to inspect its membership list on
August 23, 2010. Section 401(c) of the Act provides that every candidate has the right to
inspect a list containing the names and last known addresses of all members who are
subject to a collective bargaining agreement requiring membership therein as a
condition of employment, once within 30 days of the election. Accordingly, this section
of the law is not applicable for members who are not subject to a collective bargaining
agreement requiring membership as a condition of employment. Additionally, the Act
does not require the Local to make the list available on a particular day within the 30day
period. The investigation revealed that you were afforded the opportunity to
inspect the membership list on August 18, 19, 30, 31, September 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14,
15 and 16. Thus, there was no violation of the Act.

For the reasons set forth above, the Department concludes that there was no violation of
the LMRDA affecting the outcome of the election. Accordingly, I am closing the file on
this matter.


Patricia Fox
Chief, Division of Enforcement

Jack W. Dougherty, Local 190 President
Postal Workers (APWU), AFL-CIO
North Jersey Area Local 190 (NJAL)
1080 Route 46
Clifton, NJ 07013
Beverly Dankowitz

Acting Associate Solicitor

Civil Rights and Labor-Management Division