29 U.S.C. § 501

Fiduciary responsibility of officers of labor organizations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Duties of officers; exculpatory provisions and resolutions void

The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group. It is, therefore, the duty of each such person, taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization, to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and to manage, invest, and expend the same in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder, to refrain from dealing with such organization as an adverse party or in behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties and from holding or acquiring any pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests of such organization, and to account to the organization for any profit received by him in whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the organization. A general exculpatory provision in the constitution and bylaws of such a labor organization or a general exculpatory resolution of a governing body purporting to relieve any such person of liability for breach of the duties declared by this section shall be void as against public policy.

(b) Violation of duties; action by member after refusal or failure by labor organization to commence proceedings; jurisdiction; leave of court; counsel fees and expenses

When any officer, agent, shop steward, or representative of any labor organization is alleged to have violated the duties declared in subsection (a) and the labor organization or its governing board or officers refuse or fail to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by any member of the labor organization, such member may sue such officer, agent, shop steward, or representative in any district court of the United States or in any State court of competent jurisdiction to recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor organization. No such proceeding shall be brought except upon leave of the court obtained upon verified application and for good cause shown, which application may be made ex parte. The trial judge may allot a reasonable part of the recovery in any action under this subsection to pay the fees of counsel prosecuting the suit at the instance of the member of the labor organization and to compensate such member for any expenses necessarily paid or incurred by him in connection with the litigation.

(c) Embezzlement of assets; penalty

Any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts to his own use, or the use of another, any of the moneys, funds, securities, property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by which he is employed, directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(Pub. L. 86–257, title V, § 501, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 535.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 667 cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: International Union, Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America v. Faye
International Union, Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America v. Faye (2016) cadc · cites it 22× “…appropriate relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so.” 29 U.S.C. § 501 (b). The statute does not, however, expressly give the union itself a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty in federal court. In this case, we must decide whether the…”
United States v. Harry Seidman (1998) ca4 · cites it 12× “1998) and 29 U.S.C.A. § 501 (c) (West 1985), and on twelve counts of embezzlement from a labor union, see 29 U.”
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 v. Ward (2009) ca7 · cites it 9× “Count I of the complaint alleged violations of § 501 of the Labor-Management and Reporting Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 501 , which establishes fiduciary duties owed by a labor organization’s officers to the organization and its members.”
Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund (1990) scotus · cites it 6× “536 , 29 U. S. C. §501 *368 (c) (1982 ed.”
Noble v. Sombrotto (2008) cadc · cites it 10× “On February 17, 1994, Noble filed suit against Sombrotto and eleven other NALC officers alleging that they had breached their fiduciary duties to the union in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501 (a) by (1) authorizing a monthly "in-town" expense allowance without requiring that…”
Hoffman v. Kramer (2004) ca5 · cites it 10× “GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: Before union members may sue officers of their union for breach of their fiduciary duties under Title V of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 501 (a), they must convince the trial court that there is “good cause”…”
United States v. Kevin v. Leroy and John Hitchings, Jr. (1982) ca2 · cites it 5× “§ 1962 (d) (1976), and two counts of embezzlement of labor union funds, in violation of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“Landrum-Griffin Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 501 (c) (1976). Hitchings was convicted of two counts of making illegal payments to a labor…”
United States v. Browne (2007) ca11 · cites it 3× “6 Counts 8 and 9 charged both defendants and Devaney alone, respectively, with embezzlement from a labor union in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501 (c). 7 Count 10 charged Devaney under 18 U.”
Frank Landry v. Air Line Pilots Association International Afl-Cio, Taca Airlines, S.A. And Charles J. Huttinger (1990) ca5 · cites it 4× “Pilots allege that Huttinger breached the fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA and those created by 29 U.S.C. § 501 . The ERISA claims are dealt with, supra.”
United States v. Coppola (2012) ca2 · cites it 3× “” 29 U.S.C. § 501 (a). That provision specifies particular duties owed by officials to the union and membership they serve: It is, therefore, the duty of each such person, taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization, to hold its money and…”
United States v. Ellison M. Stockton (1986) ca4 · cites it 5× “0" encoding="utf-8"?> MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge: Ellison Stockton appeals from his conviction of embezzlement of the assets of a labor union in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501 (c). 1 Stockton makes four arguments: (1) that the district court’s instructions to the jury incorrectly…”
Adams v. American Federation of State (2016) mdd · cites it 5× “Count VII — Breach of Fiduciary Duties under the LMRDA and Common Law Plaintiffs claim that Defendants breached the fiduciary duties they owed Plaintiffs under the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501 (a), and common law.”
— 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) — 10 cases
Baird v. HOLWAY (2008) dcd
Nelson v. Johnson (1963) mnd
— 29 U.S.C. § 501(b) — 5 cases
Nelson v. Johnson (1963) mnd
Giordani v. Hoffmann (1967) paed
— 29 U.S.C. § 501(c) — 6 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.