29 U.S.C. § 413
Retention of existing rights of members
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall limit the rights and remedies of any member of a labor organization under any State or Federal law or before any court or other tribunal, or under the constitution and bylaws of any labor organization.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2023 · leading case: International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. Hardeman
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. Hardeman (1971)
“Moreover, § 101 (a) (5), 29 U. S. C. § 411 (a) (5), [2] provides that, except for nonpayment of dues, no member of a labor organization may be expelled or disciplined until there has been notice and a fair hearing.”
Hall v. Cole (1973)
“O'Hara); see also 29 U. S. C. §§ 413 , 523 (a). [22] In describing to the Senate the various "offenses" for which a union member could be expelled under then-existing union constitutions, Senator McClellan pointed out in particular the "offense" of "applying for the position of…”
National Labor Relations Board v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. (1967)
“523 (1959), 29 U. S. C. § 413 , expressly provides: "Nothing contained in this title shall limit the rights and remedies of any member of a labor organization under any .”
Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters v. Yoshimura (2017)
“At the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion, Yoshimura cited to 29 U.S.C. § 413 in support of his argument regarding Haw.”
Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America v. Lockridge (1971)
“523 , 29 U. S. C. § 413 . Beyond any doubt whatever, although Congress directly imposed some far-reaching federal prohibitions on union conduct, it specifically denied any pre-emption of rights or remedies created by either state law or union constitutions and bylaws.”
United States v. Eugene Boffa, Sr., Robert Boffa, Sr., Louis S. Kalmar, Sr., and Chandler Lemon (1982)
“See 29 U.S.C. § 413 (nothing in this title “shall limit the rights and remedies of any member of a labor organization under any State or Federal law or before any other court or tribunal”); Cox, Labor Law Preemption Revisited, 85 Harv.”
Mitchell-Carr v. McLendon (1999)
“{36} In light of the foregoing analysis, we conclude that McLendon has failed to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that he was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the portion of Appellants’ prima facie tort claims that is based on…”
William E. Brock, Iii, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. (1985)
“See LMRDA § 103, 29 U.S.C. § 413 (rights in this subchapter are cumulative); Cooke v.”
Layne v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (1978)
“This is made clear by the LMRDA itself for as 29 U. S. C. § 413 states: “Nothing contained in this title [ 29 U.”
Casumpang v. ILWU, LOCAL 142 (2000)
“§ 523 (a) provides: Except as explicitly provided to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall reduce or limit the responsibilities of any labor organization or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization, or of any trust in which a labor…”
Bowman v. Heller (1995)
“53, 65 (1966); 29 U.S.C. § 413 (1988). If all candidates for office in a union, particularly a union of State employees, are to be treated automatically as limited purpose public figures, the standard that courts have been following in determining that status will have to be…”
The Grand Lodge of the International Association of MacHinists Etc. v. John J. King, Earl N. Anderson (1964)
“2d 886 , 922-923 (4th Cir. 1963). Cf. Barunica v. United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers, CGH Labor L.”
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.