[26] MANSMANN, J., dissenting, with whom Judge Greenberg joins.

In suggesting that "innocuous, bargained for and fully disclosed payments" from an employer to an employee representative should be lawful, the majority has placed its own policy objectives above plain language. By its own terms, the "by reason of" exception of 29 U.S.C. §(s) 186(c)(1) simply does not include payments made to an employee representative merely because the payment is included in a collective bargaining agreement and the representative worked for the employer at one time. The plain language of the section 186(c)(1) exception is supported by the legislative history and purpose of the exception, and the majority's conclusion is at odds with important federal policy. Because I believe that the payments at issue in this case do not fall within the exception of section 186(c)(1), I respectfully dissent.

I.

Where statutory language is plain, we must enforce that language according to its terms. Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Comm'n v. O'Leary, 93 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989); New Rock Asset Partners, L.P. v. Preferred Entity Advancements, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 708610, at *5 (3d Cir. Dec. 10, 1996) (unless literal application will produce absurd result, plain meaning is conclusive). It is for Congress, not the courts, to create exceptions or qualifications at odds with the LMRA's plain terms. Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485, 490, 67 S.Ct. 789, 792, 91 L.Ed. 1040 (1947).

Section 302(a) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. §(s) 186(a), on its face, makes it unlawful for any employer to pay any money or thing of value to any representative of its employees. As the majority recognizes, section 302(a), standing alone, prohibits the payments at issue in this case. Maj. Op., at 4-5.

Section 302(a) contains several exceptions. Section 302(c)(1), 29 U.S.C. §(s) 186(c)(1), renders section 302(a) inapplicable in respect to any money or other thing of value payable by an employer "to any representative of his employees, who is also an employee or former employee of such employer, as compensation for, or by reason of, his services as an employee of such employer." The majority concedes that the payments at issue in this case are not payments to a current or former employee "as compensation for . . . his services." Maj. Op., at 8. The sole issue, then, is whether the payments to a former employee, who presently works as a grievance chairperson for the union, are made "by reason of . . . his services as an employee of such employer." Contrary to the position of the majority, I must conclude that the language of section 302(c)(1) is plain and does not encompass the payments at issue here.

The "by reason of" exception of section 302(c)(1) simply recognizes that current and former employees might have a right to receive payments from their employers that arise from their services for their employers but that are not properly classified as "compensation." The "by reason of" exception includes pensions, 401(k) plans, life and health insurance, sick pay, vacation pay, jury and military leave pay, and other fringe benefits to which all employees may be entitled "by reason of" their service. See United States v. Phillips, 19 F.3d 1565, 1575 (11th Cir. 1994) ("by reason of" exception applies to fringe benefits "such as vacation pay, sick pay, and pension benefits"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1312, 131 L.Ed.2d 194 (1995); BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Local 227, Int'l Chem. Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 791 F.2d 1046, 1049 (2d Cir. 1986) ("by reason of" payments include "vacation pay, sick pay, paid leave for jury duty or military service, pension benefits, and the like"); see also Toth v. USX Corp., 883 F.2d 1297, 1303 n.8 (7th Cir.) (severance pay and payments to disabled employees are "by reason of" former employment), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 994, 110 S.Ct. 544, 107 L.Ed.2d 541 (1989). Although not properly called compensation, "by reason of" payments "arise from" the employee's services for the employer.

Without the section 302(c)(1) exception, these payments would be illegal if paid to any employee or former employee who also worked for the union. Thus, an employee who worked full time for the company, but who held a part-time position with the union (a practice permitted by the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Town Country Elec., Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 450, 133 L.Ed.2d 371 (1995)), would be unable to be paid his salary and could not receive fringe benefits — despite working full time. Section 302(c)(1) plainly exists to enable company employees to obtain what is rightfully theirs. In other words, the section 302(c)(1) exception does not entitle union representatives to receive payments because of their service for the union; the exception allows union representatives to receive payments in spite of their current service for the union.

The key, however, is that the employee must receive the compensation or other payment because of his or her service for the employer. See, e.g., Phillips, 19 F.3d at 1575 ("by reason of" payments "from an employer to a union official must relate to services actually rendered by the employee"); id. (under plain meaning of exception, "payment given to former employee must be for services he rendered while he was an employee"); BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Local 227, 791 F.2d at 1049 ("by reason of" payments are those "occasioned by the fact that the employee has performed or will perform work for the employer, but which is not payment directly for that work"); Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 426 v. Bechtel Power Corp., 634 F.2d 258, 261 (6th Cir. 1981) (under "literal construction" of section 302, payment to industry steward who performs services for union, not employer, are unlawful). The payments at issue in this case are entirely unrelated to the representatives' services for the employer. I believe that the plain language of the section 302(c)(1) exception does not encompass the payments at issue here and that we must affirm the judgment of the district court.

II.

Because the plain language of the "by reason of" exception of section 302(c)(1) does not contemplate the payments at issue here, I would affirm the judgment of the district court without further discussion. Nonetheless, as I now digress briefly to relate, the legislative history and the purpose of section 302 support my conclusion that the payments at issue are unlawful.

As the majority recognizes, section 302 is a conflict-of-interest statute that is designed to eliminate practices that have the potential for corrupting the labor movement. Maj. Op., at 13; see Phillips, 19 F.3d at 1574. As the majority also recognizes, Congress was concerned about, inter alia, bribery and other secret, back-room agreements between employers and employee representatives. See Toth, 883 F.2d at 1300.

The majority does not go far enough, however. Recognizing that "any person in a position of trust" must not "enter into transactions in which self-interest may conflict with complete loyalty to those whom they serve," Congress stated that "no responsible trade union official should have a personal financial interest which conflicts with the full performance of his fiduciary duties as a workers' representative." S. Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., reprinted in 1959 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2318, 2330-31 (quoting ethical practices code of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations). Congress desired to close the loopholes "which both employer representatives and union officials turned to advantage at the expense of employees." Id. at 2330.

When he introduced section 302 in 1947, Senator Ball expressed a concern that even negotiated payments from employers might "degenerate into bribes." 93 Cong. Rec. 4805 (1947), reprinted in II NLRB Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, at 1305 (1948) (discussing welfare funds). Senator Ball stated that absent section 302, "there is a very grave danger that the funds will be used for the personal gain of union leaders." Id. Senator Byrd echoed the concerns of Senator Ball, noting that funds from the employer should not be "paid into the treasuries of the labor unions." Id. According to Senator Pepper, unless authorized in writing by each individual employee (in the form of dues check-off), "union leaders should not be permitted . . . to direct funds paid by the company . . . to the union treasury or union officers." Id. (quoting committee report).

Section 302 therefore exists to prohibit "all forms of extortion and bribery in labor-management relations." BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Local 227, 791 F.2d at 1053 (emphasis supplied) (quoting S. Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. 13, reprinted in 1959 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2318, 2329). Congress was concerned with corruption through both (1) bribery of employee representatives by employers and (2) extortion by those representatives. Toth, 883 F.2d at 1300 (citing legislative history and cases). Congress explained:

The national labor policy is founded upon collective bargaining through strong and vigorous unions. Playing both sides of the street, using union office for personal financial advantage, undercover deals, and other conflicts of interest corrupt, and thereby undermine and weaken the labor movement. . . . The Government . . . must make sure that the power [to act as exclusive bargaining representative] is used for the benefit of workers and not for personal profit.

S. Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., reprinted in 1959 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2318, 2331.

Thus, Congress was not merely concerned about secret, back-room deals. Congress was concerned about any form of payment that could upset the balance between labor and management. The payments at issue in this case do exactly that. They create a conflict of interest for union negotiators who may agree to reduced benefits for the employees in exchange for financial support for the union.

For example, let us assume that ABC Corporation and the union are engaged in difficult negotiations over a pension plan. Also assume that the employer was stonewalling on this issue, that the union had the "correct" position, and that the company could have accepted the union's proposal without suffering noticeable financial impact. Assume ABC said to the union negotiator: "I know your local is having financial trouble. We will pay the salaries of the grievance chairmen if you stop pushing for this pension plan." The negotiator, who knows that her local can no longer pay the full salaries of all the grievance chairmen, agrees, and the pension plan is dropped in favor of the financial security of the union. The agreement is included in the bargaining agreement, and both the union and ABC effectively "sell" the agreement to the employees, who ratify it (not aware that the pension plan was sacrificed in this way). According to the majority, this scenario is perfectly lawful because it was included in the agreement. According to the language, legislative history and purpose of section 302, however, this scenario represents just what Congress sought to avoid.

III.

As the majority concedes, the grievance chairmen in this case do not perform any services whatsoever for Caterpillar. Maj. Op., at 7. Instead, the chairmen perform services exclusively for the union. The majority concludes, however, that payments to such union employees are "by reason of" the employees' services to the employer. First, the majority reasons that such payments were negotiated and appear in the collective bargaining agreement. Second, the majority states that, because each employee must "give up something" in negotiations with the employer so that these payments may be included in the agreement, such payments are somehow "by reason of" the employees' service for the employer. Finally, the majority contends that the payments at issue in this case are no different than so-called "no-docking" payments made to current employees who process employee grievances during working hours. I do not believe that the majority's reasoning withstands scrutiny.

The majority first relies on the fact that the payments were negotiated and included in the collective bargaining agreement. Maj. Op., at 11-13. Simply including a payment provision in a collective bargaining agreement does not, however, make the payment "by reason of" an employee's prior service.

Section 302(a)(1) provides that it shall be unlawful for any employer to "agree to pay" any money to any representative of any of his employees. 29 U.S.C. §(s) 186(a)(1). Thus, actual payments to union representatives are prohibited, but so are agreements to pay union representatives. The majority places special emphasis on the fact that the payments in this case were negotiated and were not, in effect, secret agreements. Congress, on the other hand, was not concerned about the secrecy of these agreements. If an agreement to pay is unlawful under section 302(a)(1), it is illogical to use that same agreement as a basis for finding that the resultant payment is lawful under section 302(c)(1). Congress could easily have written an exception for payments by employers to union representatives pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Instead, Congress limited its section 302(c)(1) exception to payments in compensation for or by reason of a representative's services for the employer.

The majority does not find support in the statute (and indeed there is none) for its conclusion that bargained-for payments should be any more legal than secret agreements. Without support, the majority asserts that an open agreement makes a payment "by reason of" services for the employer. In so doing, the majority expands the exception such that the rule is rendered a nullity.

The majority next reasons that since current employees must surely "give up something" during negotiations in exchange for an agreement by the employer to pay former employees to perform union work, then those payments must be "by reason of" their services. Maj. Op., at 11. The majority contends that "the employees had to give up something in the bargaining process that they otherwise could have received . . . in exchange for a promise that, if he or she should someday be elected grievance chairperson, Caterpillar would continue to pay his or her salary." Id.

Under the majority's reasoning, the union and the company could also agree to have the employer pay the salary of the international union's president and subsidize the pension fund of the union's permanent staff — all because the company's employees might "give up something" during negotiations in the hopes that they too might someday receive those payments if elected to serve the union in the proper capacity. In deciding that "giv[ing] up something" is sufficient to bring the payments at issue in this case within the "by reason of" exception contained in section 302(c)(1), the majority has embarked on a slippery slope that will legitimize virtually any type of payment from the employer to the union so long as the payment is negotiated and included in the collective bargaining agreement.

The majority's reasoning violates the plain language of section 302(c)(1) in yet another way. This section allows an employer to make payments to a current or former employee by reason of "his" services as an employee. 29 U.S.C. §(s) 186(c)(1). The majority reasons that the payments at issue in this case are lawful by reason of all of the employees' collective service. This is contrary to the plain meaning of the statute. If a union official is to be paid by the employer, it must be by reason of that official's service to the employer — not because of the service of others who might aspire to his position. Indeed, if the collective bargaining agreement allowed, but did not require, that the grievance chairperson be a former employee of the company, then the company might find itself paying an individual who was never an employee of the company by reason of other employees' services for the company — a result clearly not permitted by section 302(c)(1). By relying on the collective service of the employees, the majority ignores the plain language of the statute.

I also fear that the majority's reasoning could be construed to apply to several situations which would defy logic. For example, let us assume that an individual applies for (and obtains) a job with the employer. One day after beginning work, the individual is elected grievance chairperson. For the next thirty years, the individual serves as grievance chairperson and performs no services for the employer. Thus, the individual performed eight hours' worth of services for the employer, but was paid by the employer for thirty years. The majority's claim that this individual is being paid for thirty years "by reason of" his one-day service for the employer is illogical.

In another example, let us assume that two grievance chairpersons are elected on the same day. One ("Michael") worked for the employer for twenty years. The other ("Mary") was active in the union but never worked for the employer. Under the collective bargaining agreement in this case, the employer is required to pay Michael, but is prohibited from paying Mary. At present, both Michael and Mary perform exactly the same services, but Michael's prior employment (for which he was already fully compensated) entitles him to continued payment from the employer.

The majority's reasoning also fails as a matter of logic in "open shops." In an open shop, not all employees governed by the collective bargaining agreement will necessarily be members of the union. An employee who is not a member of the union (and who therefore cannot aspire to become a grievance chairperson) will nonetheless be forced to endure a lower salary or reduced benefits due to his co-workers' decision to "give up something." In addition, unions will be able to circumvent the problems that arise when some employees elect not to join the union or pay union dues — they will seek agreements from the employer to subsidize representatives' salaries in exchange for reductions in pay or benefits. These agreements will be negotiated and ratified without the input of the non-union employees. Thus, an employee who elects not to pay union dues may nonetheless face reductions in salary or benefits so that the union (which he or she does not support) may prosper. The payments at issue here are surely not "by reason of" the non-union employees' services — yet those same payments are made possible by the non-union employees' reduced salary and benefits.

IV.

Finally, the majority contends that since no-docking provisions are lawful under section 302, the payments at issue here should also be lawful. The majority writes that "it would be strange indeed if Congress intended that granting four employees two hours per day of paid union leave is permissible, while granting a single employee eight hours per day of that same leave is a federal crime." Maj. Op., at 10-11.

In reasoning that the payments at issue here are analogous to no-docking payments, the majority assumes (without deciding) that no-docking provisions are lawful. While some courts have so held, we have not yet addressed the lawfulness of no-docking payments. Until we do so (and until we explain our reasons for finding such payments lawful), the majority should not analogize such payments to those at issue here.

Assuming that no-docking provisions are lawful, however, we are still not required to reach the conclusion that the payments at issue in this case must also be lawful. Indeed, there are substantial differences between no-docking payments and the payments at issue here. The primary difference is that no-docking payments are made to individuals who are current employees of the company currently performing services for the company. In contrast, the payments at issue here are made to former employees of the company not performing any services for the company.

In BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Local 227, 791 F.2d 1046, the Second Circuit observed that payments made to current employees for short absences (such as vacation pay, sick pay, or military leave pay) are all made to current employees "by reason of" their current, ongoing services for their employer. The court then reasoned that payment to current employees for short absences to perform union work is no different from vacation pay, sick pay, and military leave pay. Id. at 1049. Thus, no-docking payments made to current employees who occasionally performed union work during working hours should be treated the same as other payments for short term absences.

Importantly, the court recognized that each of these payments were made to persons whose entitlement to the payments was "by reason of" current service. As the court noted, "no-docking provisions have relevance only to persons who are currently serving as employees." Id. at 1049 n.1. The common element linking sick pay and no-docking pay "is simply that the person to whom the employer makes payment is one who performs services as an employee." Id. at 1049 (footnote omitted). If we assume that no-docking payments are analogous to sick pay, we must conclude that they can only be made to current employees who perform services to their employers. This makes sense — former employees do not accrue sick pay or vacation pay. Likewise, they should not accrue "union-work-time pay." See also Phillips, 19 F.3d at 1575 n. 18 (recognizing difference between no-docking provision and payments to non-employees who perform no work for company).

The majority cites several cases from our sister courts of appeals where courts concluded that no-docking provisions are lawful. In several of those cases, however, the courts carefully distinguished no-docking payments from payments made to union officials who did not perform work for the company. In BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Local 227, Int'l Chem. Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 791 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1986), for example, the court stated:

[W]e do not suggest that section [302(c)(1)] would allow an employer simply to put a union official on its payroll while assigning him no work. . . . [A] union official who, though on an employer's payroll, performed no service as an employee, would not be within Section(s) 302(c)(1)'s exception.

Id. at 1050. In another case cited by the majority, the court agreed that payments to a union official put on an employee payroll but not assigned any meaningful work would violate section 302. NLRB v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 798 F.2d 849, 856 n.4 (5th Cir. 1986).

The majority also cites Toth v. USX Corp., 883 F.2d 1297 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 994, 110 S.Ct. 544, 107 L.Ed.2d 541 (1989). There the court of appeals stated:

At some point, it is conceivable that a bargain struck by the union and the employer might yet violate section 302 — if, for example, the terms of compensation for former employment were clearly so incommensurate with that former employment as not to qualify as payments "in compensation for or by reason of" that employment . . . .

Id. at 1305. As an example of a case that would violate section 302, the court stated that "fulltime pay for no service cannot reasonably be said to be compensation `by reason of' service as an employee." Id. (citing BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Local 227, 791 F.2d at 1050).

Indeed, the distinction between no-docking payments and the payments at issue here is reinforced elsewhere in the labor laws. For example, 29 U.S.C. §(s) 158(a)(2) provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to contribute financial support to any labor organization. This rule contains one exception: "an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay." Id. Thus, while employers may allow employees to confer with their employer during working hours without loss of pay, the employer may not contribute financial support to the labor organization. The rule bans the payments at issue here; the exception allows no-docking provisions.

Other realities dictate that no-docking payments are simply not analogous to the payments at issue here. For example, employees subject to no-docking payments are more likely to do union work on an "as needed" basis. They are also more likely to be able to schedule grievance meetings and other union work at the mutual convenience of the employees and the employer. In contrast, the grievance chairmen in this case are paid full time regardless of whether there is any union work to be done. They are never available to perform services for the employer. Thus, the four individuals who spend two hours per day performing union work (from the majority's hypothetical) are less of a burden for the employer than one employee's absence all day every day.

V.

While the majority emphasizes its policy determination that bargained-for payments should not be unlawful, it does not discuss several compelling policy reasons why we should affirm the judgment of the district court. These policy considerations go far beyond the need to avoid conflict of interest among union negotiators, a policy that is clear on the face of the statute and in the legislative history.

Initially, as the majority recognizes, the grievance chairperson will often take a position at odds with the position of management. Maj. Op., at 7. Indeed, the grievance chairperson is most needed when the employee's position is adverse to the employer's. In order to be effective, the grievance chairperson often will fight zealously for the aggrieved employee and against the employer. Meanwhile, the employer must pay the chairperson's salary. It seems illogical to me to force the employer to pay the salary of an individual whose sole function is to oppose the employer.

Next, by sanctioning an agreement whereby the company pays grievance chairmen to perform services for the union, the majority unnecessarily creates uncertainty over whether the chairmen are employees of the union or employees of the company. In NLRB v. Town Country Elec., Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 450, 133 L.Ed.2d 371 (1995), the Supreme Court addressed the question of who is an employee under the NLRA. The Court favorably cited several common definitions of "employee" — including "person in the service of another . . . where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee . . . ." Id. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 454 (citation omitted). Under this definition, a grievance chairperson appears to be an employee of the union. Citing an excerpt from the NLRA's legislative history, however, the Court noted that "employee" includes "every man on a payroll." Id. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 454 (citation omitted). Since grievance chairmen remain on the company's payroll, perhaps they remain employees of the company. The majority does not decide whether the company or the union is the chairmen's employer.

The failure of the majority to decide whether the grievance chairmen are employees of the union or the employer may lead to numerous problems: Is a grievance chairperson considered part of the bargaining unit while on leave? Who will be liable if a grievance chairperson injures a third party while performing union work? Who will be responsible for providing a reasonable accommodation to a grievance chairperson with a disability who needs assistance performing her union job on the employer's premises? What if a grievance chairperson decides to take FMLA leave — will his eligibility depend on whether the union is an FMLA employer or whether the company is an FMLA employer? If a grievance chairperson is injured while performing union duties, will she nevertheless be entitled to disability or workers' compensation from the company? May the company terminate, suspend or discipline a grievance chairperson if he engages in activity that would qualify for termination, suspension or discipline for other employees? These questions are admittedly outside the scope of the narrow issue before us, but the majority's decision will assuredly lead to innumerable disputes about the proper classification of individuals who remain on the company's payroll without performing any services for the company. If we affirm the judgment of the district court, however, it is clear that individuals who leave the company to work for the union are union employees, and the above questions resolve themselves.

The final and most important policy consideration not addressed by the majority is that federal labor policy demands that labor organizations and employers remain separate and distinct from one another. The majority would sanction a pay practice that violates this important policy.

By enacting the labor laws as written, Congress insisted that the NLRB and the courts observe a sharp line between management and labor. NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 454 U.S. 170, 192-93, 102 S.Ct. 216, 230, 70 L.Ed.2d 323 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Indeed, the dividing line between management and labor is "fundamental to the industrial philosophy of the labor laws in this country." Id. at 193, 102 S.Ct. at 230; see also NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., Div. of Textron, Inc., 416 U.S. 267, 284-85 n. 13, 94 S.Ct. 1757, 1767 n. 13, 40 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974) (recognizing "traditional distinction between labor and management"); Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485, 494-95, 67 S.Ct. 789, 794-95, 91 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1947) (Douglas, J., dissenting) ("industrial philosophy" recognizes that management and labor are "basic opposing forces"); Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Cedars-Sinai Housestaff Assoc., 223 NLRB 251, 254 (1976) (Fanning, member, dissenting) ("underlying Federal labor policy . . . seeks to draw a line between labor and management"). Congress' desire to preserve the distinction between labor and management is evinced throughout the labor laws. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. §(s) 158(a). I believe that allowing an employer to provide financial support to a union, as the majority does here, blurs the important line between labor and management and creates the potential for conflict that our labor laws do not tolerate.

VI.

I recognize that labor organizations and employers have begun to embrace a more cooperative method of negotiating and dispute resolution, and I applaud labor-management efforts to retreat from the adversarial approach that has often marred the labor landscape in this country. I believe, however, that the payments sanctioned by the majority go too far. The financial support sought by the United Auto Workers in this case contravenes the longstanding tradition of separation of labor and management. I accept and encourage arm's length cooperation between labor and management. I cannot condone payments that threaten the independence of labor, create conflicts of interest for union negotiators, and violate the plain language of our laws. It is for Congress, not the courts, to determine if and when to permit labor organizations and employers to blur the line between them.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

[72] ALITO, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

If I were a legislator, I would not vote to criminalize the payments to grievance chairmen that are at issue here. I agree with the majority that these payments differ from the corrupt practices that usually figure in prosecutions under Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §(s) 186. Moreover, I am not certain that the Congress that enacted Section 302 would have chosen to outlaw such payments if it had focused specifically on that question.

Our job, however, is to interpret Section 302 as it is written. "The plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in the `rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters.'" United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989) (quoting Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571 (1982)). Here, the majority has not heeded the plain meaning of Section 302 and has not shown that the literal application of the statutory language would lead to a result that is "demonstrably at odds" with congressional intent. I therefore dissent.

As the majority acknowledges, Section 302 prohibits Caterpillar from paying the grievance chairmen unless those payments fall within one of the exceptions set out in Section 302(c), 29 U.S.C. Section(s) 186(c). See Maj. Op. at 4-5. The exception at issue here is that contained in subsection (c)(1), which applies to "any money or other thing of value payable by an employer . . . to any representative of his employees, . . . who is also an employee or former employee of such employer, as compensation for, or by reason of, his service as an employee of such employer." 29 U.S.C. §(s) 186(c)(1). The union argues that these payments fall within this exception for three separate reasons: (1) they are compensation for the grievance chairmen's current service as Caterpillar employees; (2) they are compensation for the grievance chairmen's former service as Caterpillar employees; and (3) they are made "by reason of" the grievance chairmen's former service as Caterpillar employees. I briefly discuss each of these theories below.

I.

"As Compensation For" Current Service as a Caterpillar Employee

Although the union's primary arguments appear to be that the payments are made "as compensation for" or "by reason of" the grievance chairmen's past service as regular Caterpillar employees, the union also maintains that these payments are legal because they may be viewed "as compensation for" the grievance chairmen's work as current Caterpillar employees. The union contends that the grievance chairmen, who are officially on leaves of absence from Caterpillar, are joint employees of Caterpillar and the union. Among other things, the union notes that Section 302(c)(1) seems to contemplate such joint employment, since it permits an employer, under certain circumstances, to make payments to "any representative of his employees . . . who is also an employee . . . of such employer." And the union argues that under National Labor Relations Board decisions the grievance chairmen qualify as joint employees.

I find it unnecessary to reach the question whether the grievance chairmen may be considered joint employees. Assuming that they are, I am convinced that Caterpillar's payments to them are not made "as compensation for" their service as current Caterpillar employees. In their capacity as grievance chairmen, they owe their complete loyalty to the workers they represent. See Dist. Ct. Op. at 14-15. They plainly work for the union and not for Caterpillar, and as the majority notes, their representation of the workers "often places them in a position adverse to Caterpillar's." Maj. Op. at 7.

It is noteworthy that the union's excellent brief, while arguing strenuously that the chairmen are joint employees, makes little effort to show that the pay and benefits they receive are compensation for services performed for Caterpillar. The union's brief merely states:

Caterpillar . . . realizes substantial benefit from the chairman's work. As the record shows, the chairman's job . . . is "to make sure that contract works" and if he succeeds, "everyone benefits — the workers, the Company and its production needs, and the Union." App. 260.

Appellant's Br. at 48.

This argument seems to me to obliterate the distinction, which is surely significant in the real world, between services performed for an employer and services performed for a union. I do not question the proposition that "everyone benefits" if the contract works; nor do I question the proposition that the grievance chairmen can help to make the contract work; but I do not think that it follows that the work that they do should be regarded under Section 302(c)(1) as services performed for Caterpillar. By this reasoning, everyone who helps to make the contract work, including presumably the union officers, could be viewed as working for Caterpillar. And since the union, as well as Caterpillar, benefits when the contract works, everyone who helps to make the contract work, including Caterpillar officers and supervisors, could be viewed as working for the union. Thus, the union's logic leads to preposterous results. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the chairmen may be technically considered to be joint employees of both Caterpillar and the union, I reject the argument that the payments in question here can be permitted on the theory that they constitute payments made to the chairmen "as compensation for" current services performed by them for Caterpillar. See Dist. Ct. Op. at 16 n. 14 (because chairmen perform no functions on behalf of Caterpillar, payments are not for services rendered by chairmen to Caterpillar whether or not they can be considered current Caterpillar employees).

II.

"As Compensation For" Past Service as a Caterpillar Employee

I agree with the majority that the payments made to a grievance chairman do not constitute "compensation for . . . his service" as a company employee prior to his selection for a grievance position. This point can be demonstrated by considering the following situation. Suppose that an employee works for a number of years in a certain job category and receives during that period the same wages and other benefits as all the other employees in the same job category with the same seniority. Suppose that the employee is then selected to serve as a grievance chairman, and that he then entirely ceases his prior work and devotes his full time to grievance work, but continues to receive wages and benefits from the employer. It is plain that the wages and benefits that this employee receives after becoming a grievance chairman are compensation for his grievance work, not for the work that he did prior to his selection as a grievance chairman. If these payments were compensation for his prior work, then his compensation for that work would exceed that of the other employees with equal seniority who had labored in the same job category. Moreover, if the payments were compensation for previously completed work (in other words, if the payments had been fully earned before the employee's selection as a grievance chairman), the employee would presumably be entitled to receive those payments if, instead of serving as a grievance chairman, he went fishing. But of course that is not the case.

Accordingly, I agree with the majority that the payments at issue here are not compensation for a grievance chairman's work prior to his selection for that position. As the majority states: "[t]he chairmen were already compensated for their production line work long ago in the form of wages and vested benefits." Maj. Op. at 7-8. "It is difficult indeed to comprehend how years, even decades, of paid union leave can realistically be thought of as compensation for time spent on the factory floor." Maj. Op. at 8-9.

III.

"By Reason Of" Past Service as a Caterpillar Employee

While the majority holds that the payments to the grievance chairmen are not "compensation" for their past service, the majority concludes that the payments are "payable . . . by reason of" the grievance chairmen's former service as Caterpillar employees. In reaching this conclusion, however, the majority does not explain with any specificity what it understands the phrase "by reason of" to mean. Nor does the majority take note of the clear meaning of that phrase in common parlance. If the majority paid more attention to the meaning of this language, it would be forced to recognize that the payments in dispute here are not made "by reason of" the grievance chairmen's past service as Caterpillar employees.

A. Dictionaries define the phrase "by reason of" to mean "because of" or "on account of." See The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1197 (1967); 2 The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary 2431 (1971). When x is said to have occurred "by reason of" y, what is usually meant is that y was, if not the sole cause of x, at least the or a major cause. If y was simply a "but-for" cause but not a major cause of y, x is not said to have occurred "by reason of" y.

This pattern of usage can be demonstrated by constructing sentences that use the phrase "by reason of" to refer to weak "but-for" causes. Such sentences invariably seem inapt and make it apparent that this use of the phrase "by reason of" is inappropriate. Here are some examples.

President Clinton could not have become President had he not reached the age of 35, but it would be ridiculous to say that he became President "by reason of" having attained his thirty-fifth birthday.

The Green Bay Packers could not have won Super Bowl XXXI without defeating the San Francisco Forty-Niners in the first round of the playoffs. However, it would seem quite odd to say that the Packers won the Super Bowl "by reason of" defeating the Forty-Niners.

The judges of this court almost certainly would not have been appointed if they had not graduated from law school. Yet it would seem very strange to say that the judges of this court were appointed "by reason of" having obtained law degrees.

I believe that these examples show that the phrase "by reason of x" refers at a minimum to a major reason for x, not simply a relatively minor "but-for" cause, and it therefore seems clear that Caterpillar's payments to the grievance chairmen are not made "by reason of" their prior service as Caterpillar employees. Such past service may be necessary for election as a grievance chairman (perhaps because Section 302 is thought to require this) and thus to the receipt of the payments at issue, but past service as a regular Caterpillar employee is certainly not the or a major cause for the payments. One way to see this is to consider the fact that Caterpillar has thousands of former employees, but only a very few of them are ever selected as grievance chairmen. Since all have prior service for the company in common, yet only a handful become chairmen, factors other than prior service for the company must be much more important in influencing their selection.

B. It should be noted that nowhere in its briefs does the union urge that the phrase "by reason of" should be interpreted as requiring merely "but-for" causation. In fact, the government's brief supporting the union agrees with my interpretation of "by reason of". Gov't Br. at 12 (discussing "common understanding of `by reason of,' as synonymous with `because,' `on account of,' owing to,' `due to' etc."). See also Appellant's Reply to Suppl. Br. at 3 ("there is no question" that "an employer may pay a former employee who is also a union official what he is owed because of his service as an employee and not one cent more") (emphasis in original) (quotation omitted).

Rather, the union's argument is that "the most natural reading [of `by reason of'] is that this phrase refers to payments which an individual earns the right to receive by serving as an employee but which are not, strictly speaking, remuneration for particular hours of work." Appellant's Br. at 21 (emphasis added). Accord id. at 34 ("so long as the right to such payments is earned by previously having performed `service to the employer'"); Appellant's Reply Br. at 18-19 ("`preexisting wage and benefit payments' for an employee elected to a full-time union position qualify as `payments by reason of' service as an employee, at least where the right to such payments has been collectively bargained and accrued as a result of the employee's work for the employer.") (emphasis added) (other emphasis omitted); id. at 21 (the "by reason of" exception "leaves no room for payments which were not earned by prior service"). The union contends that the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in United States v. Phillips, 19 F.3d 1565 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1312 (1995), supports its position that Caterpillar's payments to the chairmen were "by reason of" their service as Caterpillar employees. Phillips held that payments by a company to a union official were illegal if the union official "did not have a right to such payment before he severed his employment relationship with the company." Id. at 1575. The union relies (Br. at 37) on the court's explanation that "[w]hen an employee's right to a benefit has fully vested before the leave of absence begins, there is no danger of corruption when the employer delivers the benefit after that employee leaves the company to work for the union. . . ." Id. at 1576.

I agree that a payment from Caterpillar to a former employee now working as a grievance chairman would be legal under Section 302 if the chairman's right to that payment vested before he became a former employee. This interpretation of the "by reason of" exception has been adopted by several other courts of appeals. See Phillips, 19 F.3d at 1575; Toth v. USX Corp., 883 F.2d 1297, 1303 n.8 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 994 (1989). Cf. BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Local 227, Int'l Chem. Workers Union, 791 F.2d 1046, 1049 (2d Cir. 1986).

But the union's argument fails on its own terms here, because it is simply not true that the chairmen's rights to receive the payments at issue vested before they left Caterpillar's employ. On the contrary, their rights to receive these payments are conditioned upon their performance of certain duties in their current positions as grievance chairmen. If, as the union argues, the chairmen's rights to these payments were earned before their employment with Caterpillar terminated, then the chairmen could go fishing all day, every day, instead of processing grievances. Here, contrary to the government's argument, see Gov't Br. at 16, the payments made by Caterpillar are measured by the chairmen's current services for another employer, i.e., the union; they can earn as much as 46 hours' pay if they perform sufficient work, but if they perform less work they receive less and if they perform no work — if they just go fishing — they get nothing at all. In this respect, then, this case is identical to Trailways, and the union fails completely in its attempt to distinguish it on the ground that the chairmen are paid at a rate set by Caterpillar rather than by the union.

The basic problem with the union's argument is that it confuses an employee's eligibility for a payment with his right to it. The chairmen's prior service as employees of Caterpillar rendered them eligible to receive their Caterpillar salaries if they were elected as chairmen, but their prior service in no way gave them any right to receive any amount of money. In my view, it is obvious that their prior service is not the sole or even a major reason for their receipt of the disputed payments. It thus cannot be said — absent outright linguistic torture — that the payments are made "by reason of" their prior service.

C. The majority's main argument in support of its "by reason of" holding is that under the collective bargaining agreement "every employee implicitly gave up a small amount in current wages and benefits in exchange for a promise that, if he or she should someday be elected grievance chairperson, Caterpillar would continue to pay his or her salary." Maj. Op. at 11. In other words, the majority views the collective bargaining agreement as providing each employee with the contingent right to receive future payments from the company after that employee's regular service has terminated (the contingencies being the employee's selection and subsequent work as a grievance chairperson). Moreover, the majority appears to argue that a bit of each employee's work under the collective bargaining agreement goes to pay for this contingent right, and the majority therefore reasons that if an employee is later selected as a grievance chairman and receives salary and benefits from Caterpillar, those payments are received "by reason of" the bit of that employee's past service that went to pay for this contingent right.

This argument is inventive — but wrong. At the outset, it should be noted that the majority's argument logically leads to strange results that the majority does not seem to contemplate. The majority's argument is dependent on a grievance chairman's having "paid," while working as a regular employee, for the contingent right to receive future payments from the employer. Thus, the argument cannot justify the initial negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement containing a provision such as the one in question here. Suppose that a particular company and union had never before agreed on an arrangement under which the company would pay the grievance chairmen but that the company and the union then enter into such an arrangement. The first group of employees chosen as grievance chairmen would not have previously made any "payments" to the employer in exchange for the contingent right to receive future wages and benefits from the employer. Therefore, even under the majority's theory, the company's payments to the initial group of grievance chairmen would be illegal. In other words, the majority's theory leads logically to the weird result that the company and the initial group of grievance chairmen would have to commit federal felonies in order to set in motion the type of arrangement that the majority sanctions.

Moreover, although the majority postulates that regular employees "pay" for the contingent right to receive future compensation from the employer, it is by no means clear that this is true in most cases. Obviously, each regular employee gives up wages and/or other benefits in exchange for the employer's payments to the grievance chairmen, but what each regular employee is chiefly "paying" for is not the contingent right to receive future payments from the employer but rather the current improvement in the handling of grievances that presumably results from the work of the grievance chairmen. Indeed, under most circumstances, I suspect that virtually all, if not all, of the "payments" made by a regular employee in any particular year go to fund the employer's payments to the grievance chairmen in that year and not in future years when that employee might himself be a grievance chairman.

Finally and most importantly, postulating that each regular employee "pays" something for the contingent right to future compensation by the employer does not obviate the problem that past service as a regular employee is not the sole or even a major cause of this future compensation. Assuming that each regular employee makes such "payments" and that the payments are a but-for cause of any compensation that this employee may receive in the future as a grievance chairman, there are two other, more important causes of that compensation: selection as a grievance chairman and the satisfactory performance of the work of a grievance chairman on a daily basis. Thus, to say that a grievance chairman is paid year after year after year "by reason of" his past service as a regular employee makes no more sense than to say that a regular employee is paid year after year after year "by reason of" his having acquired the qualifications that were necessary for his original hiring.

For these reasons, it seems clear to me that the payments at issue in this case are made "by reason of" the chairmen's grievance work and not "by reason of" their prior service as regular employees. Consequently, these payments cannot be squeezed into the "by reason of" exception in Section 302(c)(1), 29 U.S.C. §(s) 186(c)(1), and I am therefore constrained to conclude that these payments are prohibited by the plain language of Section 302.

D. The majority also argues that by exempting payments made "by reason of" a former employee's past service in addition to payments made "as compensation for" that service, Congress must have intended that the two phrases refer to different things. I have no quarrel with this elementary principle of statutory interpretation, but I do not agree with the majority's application of it. The majority fails to acknowledge that three courts of appeals have construed "by reason of" to refer to a class of payments distinct from those covered by the "as compensation for" exemption, and that those courts have not adopted anything like the interpretation espoused by the majority. Because the Eleventh Circuit's discussion in Phillips precisely answers the majority's contention, I quote it at length:

Congress, in using the alternative formulations of "as compensation for" and "by reason of" in that provision, intended to remove from the statute's prohibitions two general categories of payments to employees: (1) wages, i.e., sums paid to an employee specifically "as compensation for" work performed; and (2) payments not made specifically for work performed that are occasioned "by reason of" the fact that the employee has performed (or will perform, in the case of a current employee) work for the employer. The latter category includes employee "fringe" benefits, such as vacation pay, sick pay, and pension benefits. Whether "as compensation for" or "by reason of" service to an employer, all payments from an employer to a union official must relate to services actually rendered by the employee for the section 186(c)(1) exception to apply. * * *

An employee's "right" to receive a "benefit" while on leave with the union has been upheld when it vested before the employee began the leave of absence . . . . In contrast, the section 186(c)(1) exception does not apply when a company pays a union official who was a former employee, but who did not have a right to such payment before he severed his employment relationship with the company.

19 F.3d at 1575 (first and third emphases added) (citations omitted). BASF Wyandotte Corp., on which Phillips principally relied, deemed "fring[e] benefits" such as "vacation pay, sick pay, paid leave for jury duty or military service, pension benefits, and the like" to be within the "by reason of" exception. 791 F.2d at 1049. Accord Toth, 883 F.2d at 1303 n.8 (severance payments are "by reason of" former employee's past service). These decisions are consistent with Trailways' holding that the payments to former employees contemplated by section 302(c)(1) are those that relate to "past services actually rendered by those former employees while they were employees of the company." Trailways, 785 F.2d at 106 (emphases in original).

Thus, the distinction between the "alternative formulations" is that "compensation" refers to wages paid for specific work performed, while "by reason of" refers to non-wage payments made after an employee becomes a former employee but earned while he or she was still an employee. In contrast to the Second, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, the majority here holds that the "by reason of" exception refers to wage payments that would not be made but for the recipient's prior service as an employee.

E. The only justification for disregarding the plain meaning of the "by reason of" exception would be that it would produce "a result demonstrably at odds" with congressional intent or "would thwart the obvious purpose of the statute." Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571 (1982) (quotation omitted), but the majority does not even attempt to make such a showing. I see nothing that demonstrates that following the plain meaning of the statutory language would produce a result that is demonstrably at odds with Congress' intent. I find nothing conclusive in the legislative history, and while I agree with the majority that the payments in question here are quite different from "bribery and extortion," Maj. Op. at 13, there are reasons, many of which are set out in Judge Mansmann's opinion, why Congress might have wished to preclude such employer payments. I will simply note that this very case serves as an example of why Congress might have wanted to prohibit the payments at issue. The majority's description of these payments as "innocuous" (Maj. Op. at 8) ignores the fact that Caterpillar's decision to stop paying the chairmen's salaries was designed to "put economic pressure on the Union" during the strike. (App. 144) Prohibiting company control over such payments furthers the goal of union independence by removing this weapon from the company's arsenal. In short, while I am unsure whether this prohibition is on balance desirable or undesirable, I am certain that it is far from absurd. The "explicit statutory direction" that the majority purports to find wanting (Maj. op. at 14) is plainly contained in the text of Section 302.

The history of "no docking" provisions, which seems to form the centerpiece of the union's submission, also does not persuade me to disregard the plain statutory language. "No docking" provisions differ, at least in degree, from the type of arrangement that is before us, and there are times in the law when differences in degree are dispositive. In any event, the legality of "no docking" provisions is unsettled; that question is not before us; and, like Judge Mansmann, I would not reach it here.

Since Section 302 is a criminal statute, I would apply the rule of lenity if I thought that the statutory language was ambiguous, see, e.g., Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 158 (1990), but since I see no ambiguity, I find that rule inapplicable. See Reno v. Koray, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 2029 (1995)), (rule of lenity applies only "if, `after seizing everything from which aid can be derived,' we can make `no more than a guess as to what Congress intended'") (citations omitted). I would therefore affirm the decision of the district court. If this result is not desirable as a matter of public policy, the union and its amicus, the United States, surely understand how to seek correction in Congress.