U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 11— LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE PROCEDURE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

29 U.S.C. § 415

Information to members of provisions of chapter

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

Every labor organization shall inform its members concerning the provisions of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2022 · leading case: Joseph Kofoed v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 48,defendant-Appellee, 237 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joseph Kofoed v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 48,defendant-Appellee, 237 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “LMRDA § 415 CLAIM Kofoed also claims that Local 48 violated 29 U.S.C. § 415 by failing to inform Kofoed of his rights under the LMRDA.”
Knight v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 457 F.3d 331 (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ § 411(a)(2), 3 and 529, 4 when it brought charges against Knight and Miller Bey and fined Knight; (3) for interfering with their free speech rights through Article XXVII and XXVIII (conduct detrimental to the ILA) of the ILA Constitution; and (4) the ILA violated § 105 of the…”
Brenda S. Collison v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union, Local 217 Int'l Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1994). “The LMRDA also contains a statutory directive in LMRDA § 105, 29 U.S.C. § 415 (1988), that labor organizations inform their membership regarding the provisions of the LMRDA.”
McGovern v. Local 456, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 107 F. Supp. 2d 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). · cites it 3× “) Finally, plaintiffs bring a cause of action for failure to advise plaintiffs of the LMRDA’s provisions, pursuant to section 105 of the *316 LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 415 . (Am.Complt. ¶¶ 92-93.) Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the…”
Jesse Averhart v. Commc'ns Workers of Amer, 688 F. App'x 158 (3rd Cir. 2017). “In his complaint, he asserted that the CWA defendants violated the notice provision of Section 105 of Title 1 of the LMRDA ( 29 U.S.C. § 415 ), which states that “[e]very labor organization shall inform its members concerning the provisions of this chapter.”
Knight v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 286 F. Supp. 2d 360 (D. Del. 2003). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs also contend the Defendant has not complied with LMRDA § 105, 29 USCA § 415, which requires a labor union to inform its members of the provisions of the LMRDA.”
Hughes v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 45, 386 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Burke alleged that (1) he was stripped of his instructor position because of his exercise of his free speech rights, (2) the Union’s constitution did not set forth the provisions of the LMRDA in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 415 , and (3) the defendants defamed his character and…”
Thomas v. Grand Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 40 F. Supp. 2d 737 (D. Maryland 1999). · cites it 4× “(1988), members of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) seek declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to the IAM’s obligations under § 105 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 415 . The LMRDA guarantees labor union members certain rights, requires certain disclosures by…”
Case v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 1547, 438 F. Supp. 856 (D. Alaska 1977). “Failure to Inform Plaintiffs assert in a final claim that defendants have breached their duty imposed by § 105 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C.A § 415, to inform the members of their rights under the LMRDA.”
Broomer v. Schultz, 239 F. Supp. 699 (E.D. Pa. 1965). “In the last paragraph of the complaint plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to comply with 29 U.S. C.A. § 415 in that they have not informed plaintiffs of the provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, Public L.”
Paul v. Winco Holdings, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 643 (D. Idaho 2008). “”) (emphasis added); 29 U.S.C. § 415 (“Every labor organization shall inform its members concerning the provisions of this chapter.”
Stelling v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 1547, 587 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1978). “FAILURE TO INFORM Appellants assert that the district court erred in dismissing their claim that appellees violated § 105 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 415 , by failing to inform the union membership of the requirements and terms of the LMRDA.”
Show all 21 citing 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.