Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Arroyo v. United States — Dissent

In the light of the circumstances, as the jury found, there was no payment to a trust fund as specifically required by the provisions of the Act.
I am sure that the Court agrees that the petitioner's conduct came within the 'broad prohibition' of § 302 (b) . The only question, therefore, is whether he may properly be exculpated by the provisions of subsection (c) (5) , which is quoted in full in the margin. [1] Two conclusions, implicitly drawn by the jury, emerge as indisputable when the evidence is compared with this subsection.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Arroyo v. United States — Dissent

It is well that we review the uncontradicted evidence. The bargaining agreement provided that each employer should establish a $15,000 welfare fund which 'shall be used to furnish and provide the workers of the Employer covered by this Agreement and the members of their direct family' with certain welfare benefits. It further provided that the fund should be administered by a committee appointed by mutual agreement. This committee was composed of the petitioner and the representative of the employers.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature