29 U.S.C. § 503
Financial transactions between labor organization and officers and employees
No labor organization shall make directly or indirectly any loan or loans to any officer or employee of such organization which results in a total indebtedness on the part of such officer or employee to the labor organization in excess of $2,000.
No labor organization or employer shall directly or indirectly pay the fine of any officer or employee convicted of any willful violation of this chapter.
Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1971–2011 · leading case: United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 817 F. Supp. 337 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 817 F. Supp. 337 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “Wolchok were charged with breaching their fiduciary duties to the Union and violating 29 U.S.C. § 503 (a) 3 in connection with an illegal loan to Mr.”
United States v. Tommy Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 1995). “§ 501 (e); count ten alleged causing the issuance of an illegal union loan in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 503 ; count eleven claimed destruction of financial records required to be kept by a labor union in violation of 29 U.”
United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 814 F. Supp. 1165 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “29 U.S.C. § 503 . The Independent Administrator also found that respondent engaged in another improper financial transaction: By granting himself a $77,000 retroactive salary increase, the Independent Administrator reasoned that Mr.”
Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l v. Trans States Airlines, LLC, 638 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2011). “Before the Board, TSA argued the payments to Hopkins were a loan to a union officer in excess of $2,000 in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 503 (a). The Board rejected TSA’s argument because it concluded Section 60 did not obligate Hopkins to repay ALPA unless he received a make-whole…”
United States v. Fred Ferrara & Arthur Russell, 451 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1971). “The counts on which each of the appellants was convicted charged them as follows: One, with causing Local 11 to make a loan in excess of $2,000 for the benefit of James Gleason, a third officer of the Union, contrary to 29 U.S.C. § 503 (a); Two, with failing to report the…”
United States v. Peter Ottley, 509 F.2d 667 (2d Cir. 1975). “The plea was to count five of the indictment, which charged Byrne with causing the union to make a loan to Ottley of $17,709 in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 503 (a) ($2,000 limit on indebtedness of union official to union), 2 .”
United States v. Charles Wickenhauser, 710 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1983). “Appellant Charles Wickenhauser pleaded guilty to both counts of a two-count indictment charging him with making an illegal *487 loan to himself from union funds while he was a union officer (Count I), 29 U.S.C. § 503 (c), and forming a corporation to provide temporary laborers…”
Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Local Union 745, 938 F. Supp. 1186 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “) For instance, the IRB Report details serious financial corruption by the Local 745 Executive Board, such as the issuance of interest-free loans to Local 745 officers in contravention of a criminal provision of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 503 (a). (IRB Report at 1, 4-12).”
United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 824 F. Supp. 406 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “Wolchok breached their fiduciary duties to the Union and violated 29 U.S.C. § 503 (a) in connection with an illegal loan to Mr.”
United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 14 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 1994). “The court also held that the evidence supported the Independent Administrator’s finding that appellant Wolchok violated 29 U.S.C. § 503 (a) (1988) by authorizing a $4,309.”
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSN. v. Trans States Airlines, 692 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (E.D. Mo. 2010). “) In addition to challenging Hopkins' mitigation of damages, TSA argues that payments made by ALPA to Hopkins between his airline jobs were loans in violation of § 503(a) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosing Act, 29 U.S.C. § 503 (a). Section 503(a) prohibits a labor…”
In re the Est. of Ryan, 14 Misc. 3d 834 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2006). “be given any deference under the applicable standard of review ( 29 USC §§ 503 , 1133). Petitioner claims deference is unwarranted where the issue before the court is allegedly whether the respondent, Boranian, waived any claim to pension or death benefits or whether a…”
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.