Opinion ID: 470969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Legislative History of Sec. 302

Text: 28 Section 302 was part of the LMRA as originally enacted in 1947. At that time, no-docking provisions in collective bargaining agreements were common, with approximately 40% of all industrial collective bargaining agreements containing such provisions. Basic Patterns in Collective Bargaining Contracts 15:127 (BNA ed. 1948). Congress was well aware that [e]mployers generally ... allow representatives of the union, without losing pay, to confer not only with the employer but as well with employees, and to transact other union business in the plant. H.R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 28-29 (1947) (discussing proposed amendment of Sec. 8(2) of the original NLRA). We find nothing in the history of Sec. 302 to indicate that Congress viewed such no-docking practices as abuses or that it intended to curtail them. 29 The original Sec. 302 was introduced on the floor of the Senate as a proposed amendment to S. 1126, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947) (S. 1126), a bill to amend the NLRA as originally enacted in 1935 (1935 NLRA). The proposed Sec. 302 read, in pertinent part, as follows: 30 (a) It shall be unlawful for any employer to pay or deliver, or to agree to pay or deliver, any money or other thing of value to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce. 31 (b) It shall be unlawful for any representative of any employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce to receive or accept, or to agree to receive or accept, from the employer of such employees any money or other thing of value. 32 (c) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable (1) with respect to any money or other thing of value payable by an employer to any representative who is an employee of such employer, as compensation for, or by reason of, his services as an employee of such employer;.... 33 93 Cong.Rec. 4804 (1947). The remainder of subsection (c) listed additional categories of exemptions. 34 In introducing this proposed amendment, Senator Ball, one of its authors, stated that Sec. 302's sole purpose was to ensure the integrity of union welfare funds as trust funds for the benefit of the employees, and to ensure that payments by employers to the unions would not degenerate into bribes. 93 Cong.Rec. 4805 (1947). Other senators echoed this understanding. E.g., id. (statement of Sen. Byrd); id. at 4877 (statement of Sen. Taft). See also Arroyo v. United States, 359 U.S. 419, 425-26, 79 S.Ct. 864, 868, 3 L.Ed.2d 915 (1959) (noting only corruption of collective bargaining through bribery of employee representatives by employers, ... extortion by employee representatives, and ... possible abuse by union officers of the power which they might achieve if welfare funds were left to their sole control as the congressional concerns that led to the enactment of Sec. 302) (footnotes omitted). 35 With respect to subsection (c)(1), Senator Ball stated only that [s]ubsection (c) contains certain exceptions. The first one is with respect to any money due a representative who is an employee or a former employee of the employer, on account of wages actually earned by him. 93 Cong.Rec. 4805 (1947). There was no further discussion of subsection (c)(1). 36 The Senate adopted the proposed Sec. 302 in the above form, and passed S. 1126, including Sec. 302, as amendments to H.R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947) (H.R. 3020), the House of Representatives bill to amend the 1935 NLRA. After the House voted to reject the Senate's amendments to H.R. 3020, the matter was sent to a conference committee. The conference committee recommended, inter alia, that Sec. 302 be included in H.R. 3020, without changes in Secs. 302(a), (b), and (c)(1) as adopted by the Senate. The only discussion in the conference committee's report relating to the exemptions provided by Sec. 302(c) focused exclusively on provisions other than subsection (c)(1). See H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 66-67 (1947), reprinted in 1947 U.S.Code Cong.Serv. 1135, 1173. Sections 302(a), (b), and (c)(1) were eventually enacted as part of the LMRA in the form introduced by Senator Ball. 37 Although Congress was well aware of the widespread use of no-docking provisions, we have found no mention of such provisions in its discussions of any part of Sec. 302. While Senator Ball's description of subsection (c)(1) as dealing with payments on account of wages actually earned by the employee could conceivably be read as support for the proposition that the subsection was intended not to sanction no-docking provisions, we do not believe it should be so read. We think that if Congress had viewed no-docking provisions as being among the practices that Secs. 302(a) and (b) were intended to eliminate, it would undoubtedly, in view of their known widespread use, have mentioned them in discussing the goals of subsections (a) and (b). 38 In sum, although we find the legislative history of Sec. 302(c)(1), standing alone, little more informative than the subsection's language, we think the more reasonable inference from Congress's failure to mention no-docking provisions in connection with Sec. 302 is that Congress did not intend Sec. 302(a) to outlaw such provisions. There is, moreover, fairly plain indication in Congress's treatment of other sections of H.R. 3020 that Congress considered no-docking provisions to be legitimate practices to be encouraged. 39