Document: 359 U.S. 419 79 S.Ct. 864 3 L.Ed.2d 915 Wadelmior ARROYO, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 246. Argued March 2, 1959. Decided May 4, Mr. John R. Hally, Boston, Mass., for the petitioner. Eugene S. Grimm, respondent. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 Section 302(b) Labor Management Relations Act 1947 provides: '(b) It shall be unlawful any representative employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce to receive or accept, agree from employer such money other thing value.' Under § 302(c) this broad prohibition is made inapplicable five situations, one being, 'with respect value paid a trust fund established by representative, sole and exclusive benefit * *.' provided that meets certain standards specified subsection.1 2 The petitioner, commerce, was convicted United States District Court Puerto Rico violating receiving $15,000 two their employers.2 judgment conviction affirmed Appeals First Circuit. 256 F.2d 549. Certiorari granted because case presents important question as scope provision 1947. 358 812, 55, 56. facts substantially undisputed. In 1953 petitioner president union which represented affiliated corporations. capacity he negotiated collective bargaining agreement with employers. This establishment welfare fund, which, it unquestioned, met requisite criteria 302(c)(5) Act. agreed would on joint committee administer fund.3 After signed, told employers' there meeting evening, wanted exhibit checks members. Accordingly, given $7,500. Attached vouchers idnti fied contributions fund. 4 Instead subsequently depositing existing bank administration Over period them open account name another bank. A few days thereafter, gave purported resolution union's board directors authorizing withdrawals upon his signature alone. As soon employers learned what had happened, they attempted secure performance several months, however, used own personal purposes and, after transferring funds account, non-welfare well. 5 Government does not maintain embezzlement employee employer-financed violate federal statute under convicted.4 contends, jury could properly find when accepted intended use purposes, therefore guilty embezzlement, but conduct amounting larceny trick. We evidence support inference petitioner's purpose outset apporopriate use. cannot agree, violated 6 reciprocal 302(a), applicable employers, provides '(a) pay deliver, commerce.' good faith delivering petitioner—their intent go created agreement—was questioned throughout trial here.5 delivery checks, therefore, make lawful payment. What received were 'paid fund.' transaction, within precise language 302(c), thus violation 302(b). 7 say requires mutuality guilt either employees. An might subsection (a) if even though latter no intention accepting. Cf. Lunsford v. States, 10 Cir., 200 237; Schneidr v . 9 192 498. coerced payments innocent unwilling empoloyer. Waldin, D.C., 149 F.Supp. 912, affirmed, 253 551. Both payment ostensibly both knew merely sham. 8 present case, analogue those situations. drawn Their receipt him, statute, whether misappropriate existed at time formed later. construe criminal statute. 'It legislature, Court, define crime, ordain its punishment.' Wiltberger, Wheat. 76, 95, L.Ed. 37; Halseth, 342 277, 72 275, 96 308; Krichman 363, 41 514, 66 992. mindful, course, that, 'though penal laws construed strictly, so strictly defeat obvious legislature.' supra, page 95. Holmes put it, 'We all generalities about supplying omit, canon against using common sense construing saying obviously mean.' Roschen Ward, 279 337, 339, 49 336, 73 722. examination legislative history confirms literal construction violence sense. When Congress enacted 302 assist punishing traditionally jurisdiction, deal problems peculiar bargaining. part comprehensive revision labor policy light experience acquired during years following passage Wagner Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 151 et seq., aimed practices considered inimical integrity process. 11 Throughout debates Seventy-ninth Eightieth Congresses slightest indication duplicate state laws.6 Those members supported amendment concerned corruption through bribery representatives employers,7 extortion representatives,8 possible abuse officers power achieve left control. Congressional attention focussed particularly problem demands then recently been large international financed administered exclusively officials. See Ryan, 350 299, 76 400, 100 335. 12 believed did specificity benefits payable thereunder, substantial danger perpetuate control officers, political gain. 92 Cong.Rec. 4892—4894, 4899, 5181, 5345—5346; S.Rep. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 52; 93 4678, 4746—4747. To remove these dangers, specific assure only proper expended established. Cox, Some Aspects 1947, 61 Harv.L.Rev. 274, 290. Continuing compliance explicitly enforceable district courts civil proceedings 302(e).9 devoid suggestion defalcating trustees held accountable law, except way injunctive remedy subsection. 13 Without doubt reprehensible immoral. can assumed also offended local law. But, reasons stated, we hold criminally 14 Reversed. 15 CLARK, whom FRANKFURTER, DOUGLAS WHITTAKER join, dissenting. 16 sets free. doing, assumes holds offend admitted $7,500 each required signatures eplo yers, deposited Six thereafter presented spurious Admittedly purposes. Several months balance transferred therefrom likewise nonwelfare theory seems since issued faith, union, completing Hence, reasons, '(W)hat 302(b).' further states conclusion follow 'whether (petitioner's) later.' 17 true written attached 'Covering: Welfare year 1953, accordance contract signed Feb. 21, 1953.' says tags you know nature I think has reached wrong result failure distinguish between set up agreement, 18 well review uncontradicted evidence. should establish 'shall furnish provide workers Employer covered Agreement direct family' benefits. appointed mutual agreement. composed showed identical amount 1952 previous Banco de Ponce contained over directly into account. withdrawal 19 appears, signing requested issue give him ruse like evening. deposit payable, rather than fund; have opened new National City Bank instead old while labeled establishing control, withdrew sums 20 indictment charged specifically 'nor sum says, supports 'an appropriate use.' fact matter shows action contrary parties wise complied wih p rovisions 302(c)(5). circumstances, found, provisions 21 am sure agrees came 'broad prohibition' question, may exculpated (c)(5), quoted full margin.1 Two conclusions, implicitly jury, emerge indisputable compared first place, statutory exception applies fund,' clear insofar existence 'paid' it. They out union. Neither nor ever near bona fide Ponce. From moment complete them.2 22 Secondly, casual reading shows, itself failed comply almost every respect. Since subject trust, Moreover, bydep ositing judge instructed 'a plan exist, lawfully until requirements' permit creation here whatsoever. On contrary, to, of, President. His authorized permitting fact, moneys since, require guilt.3 artifice deceit, deprived stands 23 Congress. need quote statement managers bill Senate: 24 '(U)nless (trust) funds, established, really very grave will gain leaders 4678. 25 Furthermore, recognizes enacting says: 26 'Congress *. established.' Unfortunately, converted 'substantial danger' immunity bath. practical effect repealed. All racketeers, or, matter, well, do negotiate containing qualifying 'welfare fund' contain some kind notation Although 'Both sham,' injection subtle elusive mental element duplicity enough successful prosecution next impossible. 27 Nor prosecuted law answer problem. long line cases coming involving industrial controversies where State exercised authority, area involved pre-empted Weber Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 1955, 348 468, 75 480, 99 546. strange contradiction force redress most sanction Petitioner argues, sustains felony Rico;4 misdemeanor Taft-Hartley law.5 today common, oul d affirm. relevant text appears U.S.C. 186(c), U.S.C.A follows: '(c) section (5) employer, families dependents (or employees, families, jointly making similar payments, dependents): Provided, That (A) paying, principal income both, dependents, medical hospital care, pensions retirement death compensation injuries illness resulting occupational activity insurance foregoing, unemployment life insurance, disability sickness accident insurance; (B) detailed basis equally together neutral persons event groups deadlock empowered break deadlock, impartial umpire decide sucn dispute, reasonable length time, dispute shall, petition group, court office, annual audit results available inspection interested office places designated agreement; (C) providing annuities separate therein paying annuities.' Sentence imposed authority 302(d) '(d) Any person willfully violates thereof, fine more $10,000 imprisonment year, both. *' Compare 3974, 109(a), 85th 2d so-called Kennedy-Ives bill, penalties years' 'Any embezzles, steals, unlawfully abstracts converts moneys, securities, property, assets organization exempt taxation 501(a) Internal Revenue Code 1954 (26 501(a)) officer indirectly. argument court, government counsel statement: 'The say, testimony Goyco documentary evidence, letter Ponce, that's far concerned. origin Case H.R. 4908, 79th proposed Senator Byrd, 4809, prohibited unless wages dues withheld checkoff modifications, including (c)(5) Senators Taft Ball, Senate, 5521—5522, passed. 5739. House Senate amendments, 5946, President vetoed 6674—6678, veto. 6678. Committee Public reported original bill,S. 1126, reference 8(2) minority Committee, filed 'Supplemental Views' stated offer floor reinserting regarding approved last session.' p. 52. adopted 4754, Conference H.R.Rep. 510, pp. 24—25, 67, explaining necessity adoption offered Byrd stated: 'My prevent royalty He clearly liable, amendment, bribe representative.' 4893. 5428; Taft, speaking 1126 previously 'extortion shaking down employer.' 4746. '(e) Territories possessions cause shown, 381 Title 28 (relating notice opposite party) restrain violations section, without regard 52 title, sections 101—110 113—115 title.' 186(e), 186(e). If voucher said 'in taxes,' 'United Treasury,' query: companies' taxes 'paid'? nowise intimate suggest Laws Ann., Tit. 33, §§ 1721, 1731, 1683. Petitioner's instance where, absence bad man sent jail inadvertent rigid bookkeeping requirements. Sayre, Present Signification Mens Rea Criminal Law, Harvard Legal Essays (1934), 399, 409.

Category: 0