29 U.S.C. § 483
Application of other laws; existing rights and remedies; exclusiveness of remedy for challenging election
No labor organization shall be required by law to conduct elections of officers with greater frequency or in a different form or manner than is required by its own constitution or bylaws, except as otherwise provided by this subchapter. Existing rights and remedies to enforce the constitution and bylaws of a labor organization with respect to elections prior to the conduct thereof shall not be affected by the provisions of this subchapter. The remedy provided by this subchapter for challenging an election already conducted shall be exclusive.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 144
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526 (1984).
Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526 (1984). “The court also held that § 403 of the Act, which explicitly provides that Title IV's remedies are exclusive for elections that are "already conducted," 29 U. S. C. § 483 , does not apply until all the ballots have actually been tabulated.”
Casumpang v. ILWU, LOCAL 142, 13 P.3d 1235 (Haw. 2000). “wai`i, entered on June 24, 1999, which dismissed a related complaint that Casumpang had filed in federal court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, [1] as a partial basis for dismissing his present action; and (2) ruling that the subject matter of the complaint was…”
Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (1972). “" LMRDA § 403, 29 U. S. C. § 483 . The critical statutory provision for present purposes is § 403, 29 U.”
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102 (1982). “See also § 403 of Title IV of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. § 483 (authorizing unions to establish their own election rules).”
Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134 (1964). “534 , 29 U. S. C. § 483 (1958 ed., Supp. V). [9] While both courts below referred to the question before us as "jurisdictional," it is obvious that the courts differed as to whether the facts alleged in the complaint stated a "cause of action," thereby raising some of the same…”
Laski v. Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots, 502 F. Supp. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “Section 403 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 483 , provides in pertinent part: Existing rights and remedies to enforce the constitution and bylaws of a labor organization with respect to elections pri- or to the conduct thereof shall not be affected by the provisions of this title.”
Jones, Mabel S. v. Prince George Cty, 348 F.3d 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “at 631 -32 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 483 ); see also Olden v. Hagerstown Cash Register, Inc.”
Chao v. Local 743, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 467 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2006). “” 29 U.S.C. § 483 . 3. The Secretary’s Investigative Powers under 29 U.”
Ross v. Haw. Nurses' Ass'n Off. & Prof'l Emps. Int'l Union Local 50, 290 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Haw. 2018). “LMRDA § 403, 29 U.S.C. § 483 ."); Chao v. Local 1357, Int'l Bhd.”
Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975). “There is no such prohibition in 29 U. S. C. §483 . That section states that “[t]he remedy provided by this subchapter for challenging an election already conducted shall be exclusive.”
Warren Davis, Dennis Lapso, Robert Wickline, & Gregg Shotwell v. United Auto. Workers of Am., 390 F.3d 908 (6th Cir. 2004). “29 U.S.C. § 483 (“The remedy provided by this subchapter for challenging an election already conducted shall be exclusive.”
United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 708 F. Supp. 1388 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). “” 29 U.S.C. § 483 . The Union similarly contends that some of the conduct alleged in the complaint would constitute unfair labor practices under the NLRA.”
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.