Kathleen Moglia v. James Geoghegan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Section 302 was violated where “[a]ppellant conceded . . . that at no time relevant . . . there was a collective bargaining agreement or any written agreement” between the employer and the union
• noting that the employer “never signed the agreements” with the union
• only employees and former employees may qualify as beneficiaries of a trust. Since the individual defendants here were at least former employees, it is irrelevant whether they were then current brewery employees
• “The statutory requirement of a written agreement is not a minor technicality which may be dispensed with.... A written agreement is necessary before payments may be made under the section.”
• \Section 302 [of the Labor Management Relations Act] ... prohibit[s] the establishment of any union funds by means of employer payments unless the funds conform[ ] in all respects with the specific dictates of Section 302(c).\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).