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

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1992

Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 851

Plaintiff Thomas Browne, a security guard, sought to recover for personal injuries after being struck by a brick thrown during a union picket line. The incident occurred while he was escorting a truck through a picket line authorized and directed by defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 851, at Emery's facility. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $400,000 plus interest and costs, based on evidence that the union was aware of recurring violence and failed to address it. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the judgment, rejecting the union's arguments that Labor Law § 807 (6) applied to damage claims and that the security log was improperly admitted. The court emphasized that specific proof of 'knowing tolerance' by other union officials was not required, as the shop steward on the scene was clothed with plenary authority to direct the strike on behalf of the union.

Personal InjuryLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityPicket Line ViolenceAgencyRatificationNorris-LaGuardia ActBusiness RecordsEvidence AdmissibilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Realty Company v. Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal stemming from a premises liability action. Union Realty Company, owner of a shopping center, was sued following the death of an employee, Jo A. Parker, at a Family Dollar store. Union Realty then sued Family Dollar Stores (FDS) and its insurer, Travelers, alleging breach of a lease agreement requiring FDS to name Union Realty as an additional insured. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of FDS's motion to dismiss for mootness, citing Travelers' reservation of rights during settlement of the underlying Parker lawsuit. However, the court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Union Realty, finding the lease did not obligate FDS to provide insurance coverage for Union Realty's sole negligence in common areas. Additionally, the court vacated the trial court's determination that FDS breached the lease due to a $250,000 deductible in the insurance policy.

Premises LiabilityInsurance CoverageBreach of ContractLease AgreementDuty to DefendAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentMootness DoctrineAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782 v. Texas Employment Commission

This case concerns an appeal by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782, AFI-CIO, and 99 individuals challenging a Texas Employment Commission (TEC) decision that denied unemployment compensation benefits. The dispute arose from a General Electric Company plant shutdown in 1957. The appellate court addressed jurisdictional issues related to the aggregate claims amount and venue for non-resident claimants. It affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the union as a party plaintiff, but reversed decisions regarding claimants deemed voluntarily unemployed or not totally unemployed who did not receive immediate vacation pay. The court affirmed the denial of benefits for 11 claimants who received vacation pay prior to the shutdown.

Unemployment CompensationJurisdictionVenueClass Action SuitVoluntary UnemploymentTotal UnemploymentVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementStatutory InterpretationJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mascari v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America Local Union No. 667

This case involved an injunction sought by Joe Mascari and other produce distributors against unnamed defendants to prevent an illegal strike. The central dispute revolved around the constitutionality of the Tennessee Open Shop Law (Chapter 36 of the Public Acts of 1947), which aimed to prohibit employment discrimination based on union membership or non-membership, effectively outlawing closed shops. The defendants argued that the Act violated the due process and equal protection clauses of both the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. The Court, affirming the Chancellor's decree, upheld the Act, reasoning that it constituted a valid exercise of the state's police power to ensure equal employment rights for all, regardless of union affiliation, and did not arbitrarily discriminate against any group.

Labor LawOpen Shop LawUnion MembershipNon-union EmploymentConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFourteenth AmendmentPolice PowerRight to Work
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Swank Associated Co.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 17, initiated an action to compel arbitration against Swank Associated Company, Inc., following a labor grievance. Swank removed the case to federal court and filed a third-party action against Local 210, arguing the matter constituted a jurisdictional dispute not subject to arbitration. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Schroeder, examined the collective bargaining agreement to determine the arbitrability of the dispute. It concluded that while an arbitrator could determine if the issue was a jurisdictional dispute, they could not resolve it on the merits if it was found to be jurisdictional. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the grievance was directed to arbitration solely to ascertain whether it constituted a jurisdictional dispute under the agreement.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementJurisdictional DisputesCollective BargainingLabor Management Relations ActFederal CourtPleadings MotionContract InterpretationArbitrabilityUnion Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1991

Gold v. Local Union No. 888

Leonard Gold, an employee for 29 years, was terminated by John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company following accusations of theft from a policyholder. Gold denied the allegations, attributing them to the policyholder's senility. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Local Union No. 888, UFCW-AFL-CIO, represented Gold through the grievance process but ultimately withdrew their intent to arbitrate after an allegedly inadequate investigation by union official Andre Henault. Gold filed an action alleging breach of collective bargaining agreement by the Company and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. The court denied John Hancock's motion for summary judgment, finding sufficient facts for a jury to infer the union handled Gold's grievance arbitrarily. Additionally, the court granted the union's motion to dismiss John Hancock's cross-claim, which was filed after the union settled with Gold, ruling it was barred.

duty of fair representationsummary judgmentgrievance processarbitrationcollective bargaining agreementwrongful terminationlabor lawunion settlementcross-claimfederal civil procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrucci v. Hogan

This case concerns former employees of the Interborough Rapid Transit System who became City of New York employees and subsequently resigned from the Transport Workers Union. Following their resignation, the union and its officers picketed the plaintiffs' homes and distributed leaflets. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to stop these actions. The defendants argued that this was a labor dispute under section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, which would prevent an injunction without specific procedural compliance. The court determined that section 876-a does not apply to employees of the State or its political subdivisions, thus public employees are exempt. Furthermore, the court found the ultimate object of the picketing, to coerce plaintiffs into union membership and thereby establish a 'closed shop' in city service, to be unlawful as it contravenes the New York State Constitution and Civil Service Law, which mandate appointments based on merit and fitness. The picketing of private residences with an unlawful purpose was also deemed malicious. Consequently, the court granted the temporary injunction against the defendants.

Labor UnionCivil ServicePicketingTemporary InjunctionAnti-Injunction ActPublic EmployeesClosed ShopFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of AssociationConstitutional Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brendan Van Voris and Josephine Durkin v. Team Chop Shop, LLC D/B/A Chop Shop MMA Jerry Howell

Brendan Van Voris and his wife, Josephine Durkin, appealed a trial court's summary judgment dismissing their negligence and gross negligence claims against Team Chop Shop, LLC d/b/a Chop Shop MMA and Jerry Howell. The claims arose from an injury Van Voris sustained during an aikido course after signing a pre-injury release. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the negligence claims, finding the release met fair notice requirements. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the gross negligence claims, stating that pre-injury releases for gross negligence are against public policy and that such claims are not legally inseparable from negligence for the purpose of such a release. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning the gross negligence claims.

pre-injury releasegross negligencenegligencesummary judgmentpublic policyexemplary damagesfair noticeexpress negligence doctrineconspicuousnessmartial arts injury
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,922 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