BUSI 4350- Chapter 43

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? When a court perceives a statute to be open to multiple interpretations and the agency's interpretation was reasonable, a reviewing court will ___________________ in favor of the agency.

Defer

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? When asked to review agency decisions, courts historically granted _______________________ to the agency's judgment.

Deference

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? As a result, the court _____________ act appropriately when it deferred to the DOL's interpretation of the LMRDA.

Did

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? The court found that multiple interpretations ____________ exist to the statute.

Did

Assume that the LMRDA statute reinterpreted by the DOL clearly and unambiguously excludes public sector unions from coverage regardless of context. Furthermore, the DOL does not give a reason for its reinterpretation. In this case, multiple interpretations _______________ exist to the statute.

Didn't

Assume that the LMRDA statute reinterpreted by the DOL clearly and unambiguously excludes public sector unions from coverage regardless of context. Furthermore, the DOL does not give a reason for its reinterpretation. The agency _________________ give an explanation for the new interpretation.

Didn't

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? The standard involves the following two questions: First, did Congress ____________________ address the issue in dispute in the statute? If so, the statutory language ______________________. Second, if the statute is silent or ambiguous, is the agency's interpretation __________________________? If it is, a court should _________________________ the agency's interpretation even if the court would have interpreted the law differently.

Directly, prevails, reasonable, uphold

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? Following Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., deference to administrative agency by a court ______________ extend to an agency's interpretation of its own legal authority.

Does

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? The DOL is an ____________________________ administrative agency.

Executive

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? Does the court's belief that the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute" necessarily change the decision?(yes/no)

No

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? The court also found that the DOL's interpretation of the statute was _____________________________.

Reasonable

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? Why does the court's belief that the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute" NOT necessarily change the decision? Because a court must follow the agency's interpretation as long as it is a _________________________ ________________________________.

Reasonable interpretation

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? As an administrative agency, the DOL exercises powers associated with the three branches of government: the legislative branch through _______________________________ ; the executive branch through _____________________________ ; and the judicial branch through ________________________________.

Rulemaking, enforcement, adjudication

Assume that the LMRDA statute reinterpreted by the DOL clearly and unambiguously excludes public sector unions from coverage regardless of context. Furthermore, the DOL does not give a reason for its reinterpretation. Therefore, a court _______________________ defer to the agency's interpretation of its own legal authority.

Wouldn't

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) is an Act that regulates the internal affairs and relationships of labor unions. The LMRDA requires in part that unions file financial reports annually with the Department of Labor (DOL). Since 1959, the LMRDA was consistently interpreted by the DOL to exclude all public sector unions from its coverage. In 2003, the DOL reinterpreted the LMRDA to include certain public sector associations subordinate to a national or international union that included a private-sector local union. The DOL reasoned in part that "labor unions have changed tremendously" since 1959 and modern unions are more like complex corporations and LMRDA coverage would be beneficial for union members. As a result, state and local teacher associations subordinate to a private national union, such as the American Federation of Teachers, were now subject to the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements. The teacher associations sued, claiming that the DOL's changed interpretation was an impermissible act by the administrative agency. The court stated that, although the DOL's reading of the statute was one of two possible interpretations, the teacher's associations "well may have the better reading of the statute." In spite of this, the court deferred to agency interpretation and ruled in favor of the DOL. Did the court give appropriate deference to the DOL's decision? In this case, did the LMRDA directly address the issue challenged by the teachers associations in the statute? (yes/no)

Yes