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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. v. Transport Workers of America, Local 100

Plaintiffs Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. and Surface Transit, Inc. sued Transport Workers of America, Local 100, Transport Workers of America, and Michael J. Quill for damages alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements following a 1962 strike. The Union defendants moved for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the arbitration clauses of their agreements. Defendant Michael J. Quill moved to dismiss the action against him, contending that Section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act does not permit actions against individual union officers. The court found the arbitration clauses sufficiently broad to cover the strike issue and granted the stay of proceedings. Additionally, the court granted Quill's motion to dismiss, citing Supreme Court precedent that such actions are against the union, not its president.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStrikeTaft-Hartley ActMotion to StayMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityIndividual LiabilityNo-Strike ClauseGrievance Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Bee Line, Inc.

The plaintiffs initiated an action to secure an injunction preventing the defendants, including Bee Line, Inc., from forming and implementing an agreement regarding the employment terms for maintenance staff. Initially, the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction was granted. However, this order was subsequently reversed on both legal and factual grounds, leading to the denial of the motion. The court determined there was insufficient evidence to establish that the defendants' ongoing negotiations violated the plaintiffs' existing contractual rights, noting that any proposed contract might be for a period commencing after the plaintiffs' contract concluded in November 1941. Furthermore, the court identified the situation as a labor dispute, as defined by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, and found that the necessary conditions for issuing an injunction in such a dispute had not been satisfied.

injunctionlabor disputecontractual rightsemployment agreementpendente liteCivil Practice ActBee Line Inc.appellate reviewmotion deniedmaintenance employees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 553, Transport Workers Union v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Plaintiff, Local 553, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, sued defendant Eastern Air Lines, Inc., alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act. The dispute arose from Eastern's agreement to take over Braniff's Latin American routes and hire Braniff flight attendants, which the Union claimed breached their collective bargaining agreement's seniority clause. The Union argued this constituted a 'major' dispute under the RLA, requiring an injunction to preserve the status quo. The court analyzed whether the dispute was 'major' or 'minor,' the irreparable harm to the Union, and affirmative defenses raised by Eastern, including compliance with the Norris-LaGuardia Act and jurisdictional challenges. The court ultimately found the Union likely to succeed on the merits, established irreparable harm, and rejected Eastern's defenses, granting preliminary injunctive relief to the Union. Eastern was ordered to post flights for bid by seniority or compensate affected Union members.

Labor DisputeRailway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority RightsStatus QuoAirline IndustryForeign NationalsInternational RoutesNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
38
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including the United Transportation Union and Local 377, initiated an action in state court against CSX Transport, Inc. (CSXT), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions related to CSXT's planned sale of a rail line. CSXT moved for dismissal, contending that the plaintiffs' notice was barred by a national agreement moratorium, Local 377 lacked standing, the carrier held a unilateral right to sell lines, and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) preempted RLA Section 6. Conversely, plaintiffs asserted that the National Mediation Board had docketed their dispute as major, the sale was a tactic to circumvent RLA provisions, and the moratorium did not apply to them due to local bargaining representation. The court, drawing parallels with Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. Staten Island Railroad Corp., determined that the ICC's authorization of the sale brought the matter under its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found itself unable to provide a remedy without interfering with the ICC's order and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Railway Labor ActStatus Quo ProvisionsMotion to DismissRail Line SaleInterstate Commerce CommissionPreemptionCollective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefJurisdiction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golden v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Three former employees of Ohio Barge Line, Inc. (Ohio) filed separate actions against Ohio, its parent United States Steel Corporation, and subsidiary Bradley Transportation Line for wrongful discharge. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its representatives were also joined as defendants in two of the actions. Ohio moved to vacate the service of process and dismiss the complaints, arguing it was not doing business in New York and thus not amenable to service there. The court found that Ohio, a separate Pennsylvania-incorporated subsidiary, was not subject to New York jurisdiction, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the parent company's presence extended jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted Ohio's motions to dismiss and quashed the service of process.

JurisdictionService of ProcessCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityWrongful DischargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management and Disclosure ActDistrict CourtIntercorporate Relations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Bibb (In Re Delta Air Lines)

Delta Air Lines, Inc., the Debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding against the Government Services Administration, seeking a declaratory judgment to prevent the Government from deducting pre-petition overpayments for services from post-petition amounts owed. Delta argued that such an offset was prohibited by the automatic stay provisions of Sections 362(a)(3) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Government asserted its right to offset under the Transportation Payment Act and the equitable doctrine of recoupment. The court found that the Transportation Payment Act does not create a payment scheme allowing such deductions and that the claims did not arise from a 'single integrated transaction' for equitable recoupment. Therefore, the court concluded that the Government is not entitled to set off its pre-petition claims against its post-petition liabilities, granting Delta's request for declaratory judgment.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic StaySetoffRecoupmentGovernment ContractsTransportation Payment ActDeclaratory JudgmentPre-petition ClaimsPost-petition LiabilitiesCreditor Protection
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) moved to lift the automatic stay imposed during Eastern Air Lines, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. ALPA sought to continue three arbitration proceedings related to a pay-parity provision in their collective bargaining agreement, which had been automatically stayed. The court considered the federal policy favoring labor arbitration, the potential impact on the bankruptcy estate, and the willingness of arbitrators to allow the Official Unsecured Creditor’s Committee to participate. Finding that 'cause' existed to modify the stay and noting the availability of claims estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) as a safeguard against undue delay, the court granted ALPA's motion, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsAutomatic Stay ReliefLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingRailway Labor ActPay Parity GrievanceChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' Committee ParticipationSection 362(d)Dispute Resolution
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amalgamated Transit Union v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1202, sought a temporary injunction against Greyhound Lines, arguing that Greyhound violated a New York City ordinance (Administrative Code § 22-502) by employing and transporting "strikebreakers" during a strike. Greyhound cross-moved for dismissal, contending that the local ordinance was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and thus violated the Supremacy Clause. The court analyzed the federal preemption doctrine in labor disputes and concluded that the local law directly interfered with the federally recognized right of employers to hire replacement workers. Consequently, the court found both causes of action under Administrative Code § 22-502 (a) and (c) to be barred by federal preemption. The complaint was dismissed, Greyhound's cross-motion was granted, and the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied as moot.

Strikebreaker ordinanceFederal preemptionNational Labor Relations ActSupremacy ClauseLabor disputeTemporary injunctionComplaint dismissalReplacement workersNew York City Administrative CodeLabor law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peros v. Grace Line, Inc.

Mile Peros, a longshoreman employed by Grace Line, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained on the S.S. SANTA LUISA, owned by Grace Line, Inc. He filed an action at law against Grace Line, Inc. and a proceeding in admiralty against the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant. The defendant moved to dismiss the actions, arguing that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy. Peros countermoved to strike these defenses. The court, citing precedent from Reed v. S.S. Yaka and similar cases, denied the respondent's motion and granted the libelant's motion, concluding that Yaka controlled despite the defendant being the actual owner and stevedore employer.

LongshoremenHarbor WorkersCompensation ActAdmiraltyMaritime LawPersonal InjuryExclusive RemedyShipownerEmployer LiabilityMotion Practice
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,187 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