Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/359/419/case.php
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 01:38:52
Document Index: 249986904

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 302']

provided that the trust fund meets certain standards specified in that subsection. [Footnote 1] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The facts are substantially undisputed. In 1953, the petitioner was president of a union which represented the employees of two affiliated corporations. In that capacity, he negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the employers. This agreement provided for the establishment of a welfare fund which, it is unquestioned, met the requisite criteria of § 302(c)(5) of the Act. It was agreed that the petitioner would be the union representative on the joint committee which was to administer chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Government does not maintain that embezzlement by an employee representative from an employer-financed welfare fund would violate the federal statute under which the petitioner was convicted. [Footnote 4] It contends, however, that, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This is not to say that the statute requires mutuality of guilt for the conviction of either the employer or the representative of employees. An employer might be guilty under subsection (a) if he paid money to a representative chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We construe a criminal statute. "It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment." 18 U. S. 95; United States v. Halseth, 342 U. S. 277; Krichman v. United States,@ 256 U. S. 363. We are mindful, of course, that,
An examination of the legislative history confirms that a literal construction of this statute does no violence to common sense. When Congress enacted § 302, its purpose was not to assist the States in punishing criminal conduct traditionally within their jurisdiction, but to deal with chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Throughout the debates in the Seventy-ninth and Eightieth Congresses, there was not the slightest indication that § 302 was intended to duplicate state criminal laws. [Footnote 6] Those members of Congress who supported the amendment were concerned with corruption of collective bargaining through bribery of employee representatives chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Congress believed that, if welfare funds were established which did not define with specificity the benefits payable thereunder, a substantial danger existed that such funds might be employed to perpetuate control of union officers, for political purposes, or even for personal gain. See 92 Cong.Rec. 4892-4894, 4899, 5181, 5345-5346; S.Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. at 52; 93 Cong.Rec. 4678, 4746-4747. To remove these dangers, specific standards were established to assure that welfare funds would be established only for purposes which Congress considered proper, and expended only for the purposes for which they were established. See Cox, Some Aspects of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Harv.L.Rev. 274, 290. Continuing compliance with these standards in the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Court sets petitioner free. In so doing, it assumes that he violated local criminal law, but holds that he did not offend § 302(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. It is admitted that the petitioner, as a representative of employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce, accepted two checks for $7,500 each from employers. Instead of subsequently depositing these checks in the existing welfare fund bank account, withdrawals from which required the joint signatures of the petitioner and a representative of the employers, he deposited the checks in another bank. Six days thereafter, he presented to the latter bank a spurious resolution authorizing withdrawals from this account upon petitioner's chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
with certain welfare benefits. It further provided that the fund should be administered by a committee appointed by mutual agreement. This committee was composed of the petitioner and the representative of the employers. The evidence showed that the fund was to be identical in amount and purpose to a welfare fund chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The indictment charged petitioner with receiving the $15,000 for his own use, and specifically charged "nor was such sum of money received as a payment to a trust fund." As the Court says, the evidence properly supports "an inference that the petitioner's purpose from the outset was to appropriate the two checks for his own use." The fact of the matter is that the evidence shows that the petitioner's action in so receiving the checks was contrary to the agreement between the parties, and in no wise complied with provisions of § 302(c)(5). In the light of the circumstances, as the jury found, there was no payment chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
I am sure that the Court agrees that the petitioner's conduct came within the "broad prohibition" of § 302(b). The only question, therefore, is whether he may properly be exculpated by the provisions of subsection (c)(5), which is quoted in full in the margin. [Footnote 2/1] Two conclusions, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Secondly, even a casual reading of the subsection shows, as I am sure the Court itself would agree, that the spurious fund established by the petitioner in the National City Bank failed to comply with the statute in almost every respect. Since the checks were deposited in a union account and subject to the control of petitioner, the payments were not held in trust, as required by the subsection. Moreover, the fund which he created by depositing the checks was not subject to the administration of both the employees and the employers, but was subject to the sole control of the petitioner. As the judge instructed the jury, "a plan does not exist, lawfully exist until it meets all those requirements" of the subsection. Since the sole purpose of the exception as set out in the Act was to permit the creation of a bona fide trust fund, it is obvious that the purposes of the Act were not complied with here, because petitioner established no trust fund whatsoever. On the contrary, the checks were made chanroblesvirtualawlibrary