U.S. Code
»
Title 29
» Chapter CHAPTER 7— LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— LIABILITIES OF AND RESTRICTIONS ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
29 U.S.C. § 185
Suits by and against labor organizations
(a) Venue, amount, and citizenshipSuits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.
(b) Responsibility for acts of agent; entity for purposes of suit; enforcement of money judgmentsAny labor organization which represents employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter and any employer whose activities affect commerce as defined in this chapter shall be bound by the acts of its agents. Any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents in the courts of the United States. Any money judgment against a labor organization in a district court of the United States shall be enforceable only against the organization as an entity and against its assets, and shall not be enforceable against any individual member or his assets.
(c) JurisdictionFor the purposes of actions and proceedings by or against labor organizations in the district courts of the United States, district courts shall be deemed to have jurisdiction of a labor organization (1) in the district in which such organization maintains its principal office, or (2) in any district in which its duly authorized officers or agents are engaged in representing or acting for employee members.
(d) Service of processThe service of summons, subpena, or other legal process of any court of the United States upon an officer or agent of a labor organization, in his capacity as such, shall constitute service upon the labor organization.
(e) Determination of question of agencyFor the purposes of this section, in determining whether any person is acting as an “agent” of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.
(June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title III, § 301, 61 Stat. 156.)Editorial NotesReferences in TextThis chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), was in the original “this Act” meaning act June 23, 1947, ch. 120, 61 Stat. 136, known as the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, which is classified principally to this subchapter and subchapters III (§ 171 et seq.) and IV (§ 185 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this act to the Code, see Tables.
Notes of Decisions
Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2009)
ca6 · cites it 10×
“Generally speaking, Rule 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to seek relief on the ground that a cause of action fails as a matter of law, regardless of whether the plaintiff's factual allegations are true or not, while Rule 12(b)(1) permits a defendant to seek relief on the ground…”
At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers (1986)
scotus · cites it 6×
“The Union then sought to compel arbitration by filing suit in federal court pursuant to § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a). [4] Communications Workers of America v.”
Tackett v. M & G POLYMERS, USA, LLC (2009)
ca6 · cites it 5×
“In resolving this appeal, we must decide two main issues: (1) whether, under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a), a district court must find that a violation of a collective bargaining agreement has occurred before it can exercise…”
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis (1981)
scotus · cites it 14×
“156 , 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a), does not authorize a damages action against individual union officers and members when their union is liable for violating a nostrike clause in a collective-bargaining agreement.”
Green v. Dep't of Educ. (2021)
ca2 · cites it 4×
“ding pro se, appeals the judgment of the district court entered on September 30, 2020, dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim, procedural due process claim, and equal protection claim against the Department of Education of the City of New York and the United Federation…”
Carl Curtis v. Irwin Industries, Inc. (2019)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“1 Curtis’s claim for overtime pay is preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185 , because California overtime law does not apply to an employee working under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement, Cal.”
Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson (2003)
scotus · cites it 4×
“We have also construed § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 29 U. S. C. § 185 , as not only pre-empting state law but also authorizing removal of actions *7 that sought relief only under state law.”
Casumpang v. ILWU, LOCAL 142 (2000)
haw · cites it 18×
“§ 483 , [2] and (b) section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), codified as 29 U.S.C. § 185 . [3] We hold: (1) that Casumpang's complaint is not precluded by the June 24, 1999 order of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i in Casumpang v.”
— 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) — 78 cases
— 29 U.S.C. § 185(a)(1990) — 1 case
— 29 U.S.C. § 185(b) — 3 cases
— 29 U.S.C. § 185(c) — 4 cases
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.