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

Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R.

This case is a contempt proceeding initiated against the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company and its officials for violating a temporary injunction issued on August 3, 1927. The injunction aimed to prevent interference with employees' self-organization and representation under the Railway Labor Act. The court found that the defendants deliberately nullified the injunction by promoting the 'Association of Clerical Employees' while actively undermining the 'Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks'. The judge issued a remedial order, requiring the disestablishment of the company-backed association, re-establishment of the Brotherhood as the employees' representative, restoration of positions and privileges for affected Brotherhood officers and members, and a referral to government law officers to consider criminal contempt charges.

Labor LawContempt of CourtInjunction ViolationRailway Labor ActEmployee RepresentationCollective BargainingUnionizationEmployer InterferenceUnfair Labor PracticesJudicial Enforcement
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.

This case involves cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees (BRAC) and St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW). BRAC sought enforcement of Public Law Board 1186's Award No. 316, which found SSW violated a collective bargaining agreement by using an outside contractor, ordering penalty pay. SSW contested the award, arguing the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by granting penalty pay without explicit contractual language. The court, referencing Fifth Circuit precedent like *Georgia Railway*, affirmed the Board's authority to award penalty pay based on industry practice and the collective bargaining agreement's essence, even without an express provision. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment in favor of BRAC, denying SSW's cross-petition, and awarded BRAC attorney's fees and costs.

Summary JudgmentRailway Labor ActArbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementPenalty PayPublic Law BoardJurisdictionAttorney's FeesContract ViolationIndustrial Justice
References
11
Case No. Civ. A. No. TY-83-232-CA
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1985

BROTH. OF RY., AIRLINE, ETC. v. St. Louis SW Ry.

Petitioners, Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and Steamship Clerks (BRAC), sought enforcement of Award No. 316 from Public Law Board 1186, which ordered St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW) to pay Charles Helloms, Jr. for a violation of their collective bargaining agreement. SSW cross-petitioned to set aside the award, arguing the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding penalty pay without express contractual authorization. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, found that the Board's decision drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and industry practice, citing prior Fifth Circuit rulings. The court rejected SSW's arguments, enforced Award No. 316 against SSW, and awarded BRAC attorney's fees and costs.

Railway Labor ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardPenalty PayUnion RightsContract ViolationEnforcement ActionSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesFifth Circuit Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mead v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees

A General Chairman of the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (B.R.A.C.) sought an injunction against the International Union to prevent the transfer of funds from local lodge treasuries to a new Express Division in New York City, alleging a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) due to potential fund mismanagement. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming the transfers were approved and lacked proof of present fiscal mismanagement. The court, adopting a restrictive view of Section 501 focused solely on financial dealings, determined that the plaintiff's claims, without evidence of current mismanagement, did not establish a legally cognizable cause of action. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Union DisputesLabor UnionsInter-union Funds29 U.S.C. 501Injunctive ReliefMotion DismissalRestrictive Statutory InterpretationFinancial OversightOrganizational ReorganizationFederal Labor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Railway Carmen v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

The plaintiffs, six unions representing employees of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant's 'Voluntary Resignation Program.' Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) due to direct bargaining with employees and unilateral changes to collective bargaining agreements. Defendant argued the dispute was 'minor,' falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railway Arbitration Board (NRAB), as it involved the interpretation or application of an existing contract or past practices. The court determined the dispute was 'minor' because the defendant's claim of past practices regarding voluntary resignation programs was nonfrivolous, placing it within the NRAB's exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Railway Labor ActCollective BargainingSummary JudgmentVoluntary Resignation ProgramNational Railway Arbitration BoardMajor DisputeMinor DisputeFederal JurisdictionUnion RightsEmployer Practices
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otten v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Theodore F. Otten, a former employee of Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company, was discharged for refusing to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a requirement under a union shop agreement sanctioned by the Railway Labor Act. Otten's refusal was rooted in religious conscience, not hostility towards unions. The Court of Appeals had previously affirmed a denial of his motion for a temporary injunction and a three-judge court, signaling the likely outcome. Despite the equitable appeal of Otten's case and his financial loss, the district court felt bound by the appellate court's prior ruling on the merits. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss outright, reasoning that a federal question regarding the Railway Labor Act's construction might still exist. However, the court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim for relief, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without costs.

Union Shop AgreementRailway Labor ActReligious ObjectionEmployment DischargeConscientious RefusalFederal JurisdictionAppellate ReviewLabor LawTrial Court RulingConstitutional Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AMR Services Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Plaintiff AMR Services Corporation sought a preliminary injunction against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Local 851 and Airline Division, alleging illegal picketing at J.F.K. International Airport. AMR contended the picketing violated the Railway Labor Act by aiming for representational and organizational purposes among AMR's employees. The defendant unions argued their actions were legitimate, primarily protesting Korean Air Lines' contract termination with Triangle Aviation Services and publicizing AMR's alleged substandard wages, not to organize AMR employees. The court found no objective evidence of a present purpose by the unions to seek recognition of AMR employees, distinguishing the case from precedents involving explicit organizational efforts. Consequently, the court concluded that no "dispute" over representation existed under the Railway Labor Act, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act barred the injunction, leading to its denial.

Labour disputeRailway Labor ActNational Labor Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActPicketingUnion representationArea standardsPreliminary injunctionCollective bargainingFederal labor law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

BNSF Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

The case involves a "minor dispute" under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) concerning the authority to use remote-control-operation (RCO) technology. Plaintiff BNSF Railway Company, defendant United Transportation Union (UTU), and intervenor Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) each sought summary judgment. The central conflict arises from interpretations of the 2002 and 2007 collective-bargaining agreements regarding which union's members have exclusive rights to RCO in road service. The court determined that the dispute could be resolved by interpreting these existing agreements, thus classifying it as a minor dispute subject to mandatory arbitration under the RLA. Consequently, the court granted BNSF's motion for summary judgment and denied those filed by BLET and UTU.

Railway Labor ActRLARemote Control OperationRCOCollective Bargaining AgreementCBAMinor DisputeMajor DisputeSummary JudgmentArbitration
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Division 269 v. Long Island Rail Road

Plaintiffs, members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), sought a preliminary injunction against the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) to prevent the imposition of disciplinary fines following a concerted job action on May 26, 1995. The LIRR assessed fines against engineers who participated in the walk-out, deducting pay. The BLE argued that these fines violate their Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Railway Labor Act (§ 2 Seventh and § 6), and New York Labor Law § 193, classifying the dispute as "major" under the RLA, requiring lengthy mediation. The LIRR contended the fines are disciplinary actions falling under the implied terms of the collective bargaining agreement, making it a "minor" dispute governed by arbitration (§ 2 Sixth and § 3 First® of the RLA). The court, applying the "arguably justified" test from Conrail, found that the LIRR's claim of implied authority to impose fines, based on past flexible disciplinary practices, was neither frivolous nor insubstantial. Therefore, the court concluded the dispute was "minor," falling outside its jurisdictional authority for an injunction, and denied the preliminary injunction, dismissing the case.

Railway Labor ActMinor DisputeMajor DisputePreliminary InjunctionDisciplinary FinesCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeWork StoppageArbitrationStatus Quo Injunction
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 582 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