Ventimiglia v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
242 F.2d 620 (1957)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Frank Ventimiglia and James Parran (defendants), general manager and labor relations adviser, respectively, of Weather-Mastic, Inc., a non-union contractor engaged in the insulating and weather-proofing business, were indicted for substantive violations of the Taft-Hartley Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C.A. § 186(a), as well as charges of conspiracy to violate the Act. The Act prohibited the payment of money by certain employers to any representative of any of its employees. The prevailing industry practice required union workers to possess some evidence of membership. If the employee was not a union member working on a union-controlled project, the employee was required to have a “working card,” issued by the union. Weather-Mastic was a sub-contractor working on a union-controlled job in which a unionized company acted as general contractor. Joseph Martin, the business agent for the local union, became upset when he learned that Ventimiglia had issued “working cards” to Weather-Mastic employees rather than Martin himself. Defendants then agreed to pay Martin $100 for each card issued to a Weather-Mastic employee. Martin never represented any of Weather-Mastic’s employees in any other manner. Defendants were convicted of the conspiracy charges, but were acquitted of the substantive violations of the Act. Defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sobeloff, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
