CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 16-CA-12241
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1985

Dunn v. Pilgrim Industries, Inc.

The Regional Director of Region Sixteen of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Michael Dunn, filed a verified petition for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Pilgrim Industries, Inc. The petition alleged that Pilgrim Industries engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 540, following its acquisition of Pluss-Tex Poultry Company, and by unilaterally implementing changes to employee benefits and work shifts. The court found reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices had occurred. However, it declined to issue a mandatory bargaining order, citing insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to the Union that could not be remedied by a final Board order. The court instead granted a prohibitory injunction, restraining Pilgrim Industries from actions intended to erode employee support or membership in the Union and from unlawfully dissipating Union strength, while explicitly allowing the previously instituted pay increase, pension plan, and second work shift to remain. The ultimate resolution of successor employer status and bargaining duty was deferred to the NLRB.

National Labor Relations ActSection 10(j) InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeSuccessor EmployerDuty to BargainUnilateral ChangesCollective BargainingLabor DisputeTemporary InjunctionProhibitory Injunction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harvey v. Marlene Industries Corp.

The National Labor Relations Board, through its Acting Regional Director William K. Harvey, sought an injunction under NLRA Section 10(j) to prevent Marlene Industries Corporation from distributing proceeds from an asset sale. This was in anticipation of a final Board decision on unfair labor practice charges, which an Administrative Law Judge had found against Marlene. The long-standing labor dispute originated in 1970 with employee discharges and subsequent picketing. The court, however, denied the injunction, concluding that there was no demonstrated danger of irreparable harm. Furthermore, the court found that the core issues had been previously addressed and resolved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1975, ruling that Marlene's actions in 1970 were not unlawful, and thus, extraordinary relief was unwarranted.

Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActAsset SaleRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSixth Circuit Court of AppealsBack Pay ClaimsIrreparable HarmSection 10(j)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Compressed Air, Foundation, Tunnel, Caisson, Subway, Cofferdam, Sewer Construction Workers, Local No. 147 of New York, New Jersey States & Vicinity

The Regional Director of the Second District of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against a labor organization (the Union) under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Director believed the Union violated Sections 8(b)(3) and 8(d) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively and failing to provide proper notice for modification or termination of an existing collective bargaining agreement with Andrew Catapano Co., Inc. and Grow Construction Co., Inc. (C-G). The Union ceased work on a sewer construction project in Brooklyn, New York, arguing negotiations concerned a future contract, not modification of the current one. District Judge Bartels found reasonable cause to believe the work stoppage stemmed from a dispute over modifying an existing agreement without proper notice, constituting an unfair labor practice. The petition for injunction was granted, and a motion to amend the petition to include termination violation was also granted.

National Labor Relations ActInjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingContract ModificationContract TerminationWork StoppageLabor DisputeRegional Director NLRBSection 10(j)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary restraining order against Local 25, a labor union, alleging unfair labor practices against Sarrow-Suburban Electric Co., Inc. and Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. The charges, filed on September 14, 1964, claimed Local 25 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by attempting to force employers to assign work to its members. A preliminary investigation by the Board found reasonable cause to believe the charges were true, supporting the request for injunctive relief under Section 10(J) of the Act. Evidence showed Local 25 demanded Brunswick Hospital break its contract with Sarrow and assign work to its members, subsequently initiating a work stoppage through picketing. The Court found reasonable cause for the Director's belief and granted the temporary restraining order.

unfair labor practicetemporary restraining orderlabor disputeNational Labor Relations Actpicketingwork stoppagelabor unioninjunctionDistrict Courtcollective bargaining
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. United Steelworkers of America

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary injunction against unnamed respondents for alleged unfair labor practices under § 8(b)(4)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. The charges stemmed from a labor dispute and strike against Phelps Dodge Refining Corporation, where the respondents picketed a dedicated contractors' gate, obstructing access for employees of T. F. Contracting Co., Inc., A. Munder & Sons, Inc., and M. W. Kellogg Co. The court found that the picketing induced these contractors' employees to refuse to work, with the objective of forcing the contractors to cease doing business with Phelps Dodge. Based on the evidence, the court concluded there was reasonable cause to believe the charges were true and that the acts were violative of the Act. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction was granted, effective until the Board's final determination of the charges.

injunctionunfair labor practicesecondary boycottpicketingNational Labor Relations Actlabor disputeconstruction projecttemporary restraining orderconcerted refusalunion strike
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ley v. Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A

Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition against the Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (Union) seeking a preliminary injunction. Ley alleged that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Xerox Corporation (Employer) constituted an unlawful 'union signatory' agreement under Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, Ley claimed that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII violated Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Union argued that Article XXII was a lawful work preservation provision. The Court found reasonable cause to believe the Union was violating the Act and that a preliminary injunction was just and proper to prevent further statutory violations and maintain public interest. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining the Union from enforcing Article XXII.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActUnion Signatory AgreementWork PreservationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingArbitrationDistrict Court
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chilton Air Cooled Engines, Inc. v. Omark Industries, Inc.

Chilton Air Cooled Engines, Inc., a Tennessee distributor, sued Omark Industries, Inc., an Oregon manufacturer, following the termination of their distribution agreement. Chilton alleged federal antitrust violations and several state law claims, including a demand for Omark to repurchase inventory, wrongful termination based on breach of an implied covenant of good faith, malicious interference with prospective business relations, equitable recoupment of investment, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Omark filed a motion for partial dismissal targeting these state law claims. The court, applying Illinois' choice of law rules, determined that Oregon law governed contract claims and Tennessee law applied to tort claims. The court dismissed all state law claims, concluding that Oregon law permits termination of at-will contracts for any reason, and Tennessee law does not recognize the tort of interference with prospective business relations for damages sought by corporations under the Consumer Protection Act.

Contract LawDistribution AgreementAt-Will ContractChoice of LawFederal Antitrust ClaimsState Law ClaimsWrongful TerminationImplied Covenant of Good FaithRepurchase of InventoryEquitable Recoupment
References
26
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernbach v. 3815 9th Avenue Meat & Produce Corp.

The Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board petitioned the court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition sought an interim order to halt alleged unlawful labor practices and mandate the reinstatement of five employees discharged on October 22, 2011, amid union organizing efforts. The court found reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the Act, noting the close temporal proximity between the employer learning of union activity and the discharges, and the pretextual nature of the employer's cost-saving justification. It also determined that injunctive relief, including a cease and desist order and employee reinstatement, was just and proper to restore the status quo and mitigate the chilling effect on unionization caused by the discharges. Consequently, the court granted the petition for injunctive relief.

National Labor Relations ActNLRBSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticeEmployee DischargeUnion OrganizingReinstatementCease and DesistLabor Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 17,024 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational