Alternative Relief to 29 U.S.C. 504 and 1111
A significant practical application of 29 U.S.C. § 504 occurred
connection with the prosecution in United States v. Scaccia, 514 F.
1353 (N.D.N.Y. 1981), where a union business manager was convicted in 1975
embezzlement and was imprisoned for two months and placed on probation for
months. One of the conditions of probation was to "refrain from violation
law." Subsequent investigation determined that the defendant was performing
duties of union business manager in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 504.
than pursuing prosecution under section 504, the probationary sentence was
revoked upon a finding that the probationer's violation of section 504 was a
violation of the above condition.|
There is also authority for imposing specific conditions of
that an individual not hold union office. See United States v.
Barraso, 372 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1967); Berra v. United States,
F.2d 590 (8th Cir. 1955), aff'd on other grounds, 351 U.S. 131 (1956)
(pre-29 U.S.C. § 504 case).
Removal from union office also has been effected under the RICO
forfeiture statute and pursuant to civil injunctive relief. See 18
§ 1963; United States v. Rubin, 559 F.2d 975, 990-993 (5th Cir.
18 U.S.C. § 1964; United States v. Teamsters Local 560, 581 F.
279 (D.N.J.), aff'd, 780 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1985).
[cited in USAM 9-138.180]