29 U.S.C. § 169

Employees with religious convictions; payment of dues and fees

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets or teachings of a bona fide religion, body, or sect which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting labor organizations shall not be required to join or financially support any labor organization as a condition of employment; except that such employee may be required in a contract between such employees’ employer and a labor organization in lieu of periodic dues and initiation fees, to pay sums equal to such dues and initiation fees to a nonreligious, nonlabor organization charitable fund exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, chosen by such employee from a list of at least three such funds, designated in such contract or if the contract fails to designate such funds, then to any such fund chosen by the employee. If such employee who holds conscientious objections pursuant to this section requests the labor organization to use the grievance-arbitration procedure on the employee’s behalf, the labor organization is authorized to charge the employee for the reasonable cost of using such procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1951–2017 · leading case: National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop
National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop (1979) scotus · cites it 2× “or financially support any labor organization as a condition of employment; except that such employee may be required, in lieu of periodic dues and initiation fees, to pay sums equal to such dues and initiation fees to a nonreligious charitable fund exempt from taxation under…”
Maurice S. Wilson v. National Labor Relations Board (1990) ca6 · cites it 5× “Because we hold that section 19 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 169 , is unconstitutional and cannot be construed as petitioner requests, we deny the petition for review.”
Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc. (1998) scotus · cites it 2× “For example, the NLRA provides that workers with religious objections to supporting unions cannot be forced to pay any fees to a union, 29 U. S. C. § 169 , and it also provides that the workers cannot be forced to pay fees that are discriminatory or excessive, § 158(b)(5).”
Bushouse v. Local Union 2209, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers (2001) innd · cites it 2× “*1072 Thereafter, in August 2000, Bushouse filed the instant lawsuit claiming violations of Title VII and that 29 U.S.C. § 169 (§ 19 of the NLRA) was unconstitutional.”
Boire v. Greyhound Corp. (1964) scotus “1 Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 169 (c), provides in pertinent part: “(1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board— “(A) by an employee or group of employees or…”
McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional De Marineros De Honduras (1963) scotus “91 and 93 the jurisdiction of the District Court was challenged on two grounds: first, that review of representation proceedings is limited by § 9 (d) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 169 (d), to indirect review as part of a petition for enforcement or review of an order entered under…”
Killian v. United States (1962) scotus “For the purpose of enabling a labor union of which he was then an officer to comply with § 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 169 (h), and hence to use the processes of the National Labor Relations Board, 1 petitioner made on Decembér 9, and…”
Bellagio, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (2017) cadc “The Board Proceedings The Union petitioned the Board for certification under section 9(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 169 (c), seeking to represent a bargaining unit of all the techs at each of the two casinos.”
Travis v. United States (1961) scotus “” 29 U. S. C. § 169 (h), repealed by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat.”
Scomas of Sausalito, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (2017) cadc “See 29 U.S.C. § 169 (c)(1)(A)(ii); NLRB Ca-sehandling Manual, Pt.”
National Labor Relations Board v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. (1952) ca9 “§§ 9(c) (1), 10(a), 2(6) and 2(7), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 169 (e) (1), 160(a), 152(6) and (7).”
Cooper v. General Dynamics, Convair Aerospace Division (1976) ca5 · cites it 6× “Finally, Congress’ recent passing of the health-care-institution exemption itself, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 169 , without undertaking to amend section 8(a)(3) as a condition precedent to that action, indicates that it accords to sec *170 tion 8(a)(3) no such commanding status as…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.