Legal Opinion · Dissent

Local Union No. 38 v. Pelella

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided November 17, 2003No. Docket No. 02-7939Published

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

  1. Reiter v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Finnegan v. LeuSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers v. CrowleySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. United Steelworkers of America v. SadlowskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API