Summary

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Arroyo v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The sole purpose of the delivery of the checks, therefore, was to make a lawful payment. What the petitioner received were checks 'paid to a trust fund.' The transaction, therefore, was within the precise language of § 302 (c) , and thus was not a violation of § 302 (b) .
This is not to say that the statute requires mutuality of guilt for the conviction of either the employer or the representative of employees. An employer might be guilty under subsection (a) if he paid money to a representative of employees even though the latter had no intention of accepting.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Arroyo v. United States — Opinion of the Court

It shall be unlawful for any employer to pay or deliver, or to agree to pay or deliver, any money or other thing of value to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce.' The good faith of the employers in delivering the two checks to the petitioner-their intent that the money go to the welfare fund created by the collective bargaining agreement-was not questioned throughout the trial and is not questioned here.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature