Court Opinion

ID: 9449502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:14:05.493912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:51.824126
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result.
The statute (Section 101(a) (5) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act) requires as a condition of the validity of a union’s disciplinary action against one of its members that the member to be disciplined be “served with written specific charges”. Obviously this means that the subsequent discipline must be based upon the charges served. In the present case there was no evidence whatsoever to support the charge which was served, that of filing false and fraudulent pay and expense claims. Affirmance of the decision of the district court follows from this conclusion. There is therefore no occasion to evaluate or weigh the evidence produced at the union hearing.