U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 11— LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE PROCEDURE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VII— MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

29 U.S.C. § 529

Prohibition on certain discipline by labor organization

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

It shall be unlawful for any labor organization, or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization, or any employee thereof to fine, suspend, expel, or otherwise discipline any of its members for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of this chapter. The provisions of section 412 of this title shall be applicable in the enforcement of this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 176 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (1989). · cites it 4× “[§ 411(a)(5)] and 29 U. S. C. § 529 ." Id., ¶ 17. Respondent, in other words, "acting by and through its present business manager .”
Shivers v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union 349, 262 F. App'x 121 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “See 29 U.S.C. § 529 . Although we have not previously addressed the statute of limitations for claims arising under section 609 of the LMRDA, for the same reasons that we look to state law for the statute of limitations for claims arising under section 101, we also look to state…”
Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (1982). · cites it 2× “[5] In addition, § 609 of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 529 , renders it unlawful for a union or its representatives "to fine, suspend, expel, or otherwise discipline any of its members for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of this Act.”
Efrain MacEira v. Luis Enrique Pagan, 649 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1981). · cites it 4× “They further alleged that this removal constituted “discipline” proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 529 . 1 Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction reinstating Maceira pending trial of their claim.”
Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. Lynn, 488 U.S. 347 (1989). · cites it 2× “§ 529 , which makes it unlawful for a union or its officials "to fine, suspend, expel, or otherwise discipline any of its members for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of this Act." 73 Stat. 541 . We rejected this claim, holding that "removal from…”
Morris v. Hoffa, 361 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2004). · cites it 7× “§ 411 (a)(2), and disciplined them for the exercise of their free speech rights in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 529 . Count Three alleged that Hoffa breached the IBT’s Constitution by imposing the emergency trusteeship over Local 115 in the absence of any colorable emergency, in…”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175 (1967). · cites it 2× “29 U. S. C. § 529 . [36] In Machinists v.”
Lyne Brunt, David Wadinski & John Wittenberg v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union & Dan Iverson, 284 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2002). “29 U.S.C. § 529 . Appellants claim that they were subject to unlawful discipline under these provisions when Iverson ordered their termination.”
Frances Childs v. Local 18, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, & Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 719 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Appellant also claims that her discharge as a business representative of Local 18 violated the provisions of the LMRDA, because the termination of her job constituted unlawful “discipline” under section 609, 29 U.”
Daniel P. Quinn v. Joseph L. Digiulian, Jr., 739 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 411 , 1 and section *639 609 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 529 . 2 The jury also found that the Local had violated the duty of fair representation implicit in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.”
Rosario v. Dolgen, 441 F. Supp. 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). · cites it 4× “, and that the punishment was therefore in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 529 . 7 The complaint further alleged that plaintiffs had been denied the “full and fair hearing” guaranteed them by 29 U.”
Rodriguez v. Serv. Employees Int'l, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 6× “Finally, Plaintiffs invoke 29 U.S.C. § 529 , which makes it illegal for a union to discipline a member for exercising rights protected under 29 U.”
Show all 176 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.