Local Union No. 38 v. Pelella
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1DissentStraub, Circuit Judge
The majority construes the phrase “to institute an action” in section 101(a)(4) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(4), as meaning only to file a complaint, and not to assert a counterclaim. This reading has two consequences. First, under this reading, the section’s second proviso does not bar counterclaims financed by interested employers. Second, this reading means that section 101(a)(4) gives a union member no protection against being disciplined by a union for asserting a counterclaim. Because I do not think that the majority’s reading is…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Reiter v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Finnegan v. LeuSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers v. CrowleySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United Steelworkers of America v. SadlowskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. Kirk Gayle, Ann-Marie Richardson, Rohan IngramCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.