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

United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. General Electric Co.

The Union, consisting of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and five of its locals, sued General Electric Company under the Taft-Hartley Act to compel arbitration of various grievances. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The central issues revolve around whether the 1956-1960 collective bargaining agreement provides for compulsory arbitration and if the grievances fall within its scope. The court found the contract language ambiguous, requiring extrinsic evidence for proper interpretation. Consequently, the court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing the presence of genuine issues of material fact that warrant a full trial.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationTaft-Hartley ActSummary JudgmentLabor LawContract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceAmbiguityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureGrievance Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical & Machine Workers v. General Electric Co.

This case involves a dispute between the International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers (Union) and General Electric Company (Company), and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, concerning a 1966 Pension and Insurance Agreement and its incorporated Insurance Plan. The Union alleged the Company wrongfully rejected sickness and accident claims filed during a strike and, alternatively, sought reimbursement for employee contributions for coverage not provided during the strike. The central issue was the interpretation of clauses governing sickness and accident benefits during voluntary strike absences. The Court found that the Company properly rejected claims for benefits arising more than 31 days into the strike, dismissing the Union's first claim. However, the Court ruled that employees are entitled to reimbursement for the portion of their contributions related to sickness and accident coverage not afforded during the strike, and ordered an assessment of damages if parties cannot agree on the amount.

labour lawcollective bargaining agreementinsurance plansickness and accident benefitsstrikeemployee contributionscontract interpretationunjust enrichmentdamagesfederal court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The plaintiff, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, filed a complaint against various defendants, including labor unions, union officials, installers, and a manufacturer of electrical equipment, alleging a conspiracy to deprive its members of collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The court, presided over by District Judge Mandelbaum, determined that the National Labor Relations Board holds exclusive jurisdiction over such controversies. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had not exhausted its administrative remedies before the Board. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, directing the plaintiff to pursue relief through appropriate administrative proceedings.

Labor LawJurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesConspiracyBoycottMotion to Dismiss
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dow Electric, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 910

Plaintiff Dow Electric Inc. sought to vacate a Labor-Management Committee's award for violating collective bargaining agreements, while Defendant Local Union 910 IBEW counterclaimed for confirmation. The dispute centered on whether Dow Electric Inc. effectively terminated its collective bargaining authority with the Association before the 2000-2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) came into effect. The Court found that Plaintiff's July 31, 1998, letters unequivocally terminated the Association’s collective bargaining authority, and subsequent correspondence did not retract this. Therefore, the 2000-2003 CBA did not bind Plaintiff, and the Committee lacked jurisdiction over grievances based on it. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding the 2000-2003 CBA award, vacating the $991,629.89 award. However, the Court affirmed the Committee's $63,011.48 award for violations of the 1997-2000 CBA, ruling that disputes based on acts prior to an agreement's expiration can still be arbitrated, and the awards for interest, liquidated damages, and back pay were plausibly grounded in the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawUnionSummary JudgmentArbitrationContract TerminationMulti-Employer Bargaining UnitPre-hire AgreementGrievanceAudit
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Co. v. M/V Gediz

General Electric Company brought an action against Turkish Cargo Lines under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) for alleged cargo damage. Turkish Cargo Lines moved for summary judgment, asserting that General Electric's claim was barred by COGSA's one-year statute of limitations. General Electric contended that Turkish Cargo was estopped from raising this defense due to its conduct, which supposedly induced General Electric not to file suit within the required period. The court conducted a hearing to assess the validity of the estoppel claim. Ultimately, the court found that General Electric failed to demonstrate sufficient conduct by Turkish Cargo to warrant an estoppel, noting that claimed extensions were invalid or made by unauthorized agents. Consequently, Turkish Cargo Lines' motion for summary judgment was granted, and General Electric's complaint was dismissed as time-barred.

COGSAStatute of LimitationsEstoppelSummary JudgmentCargo DamageMaritime LawShipping DisputeAgent AuthoritySettlement NegotiationsTime Barred
References
10
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02888 [149 AD3d 500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2017

O'Leary v. S&A Electrical Contracting Corp.

Plaintiff Patrick O'Leary sustained injuries from an electrical shock while overseeing renovation work. He sued S&A Electrical Contracting Corp. and 1435 Broadway, LLC (Owner) under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted O'Leary partial summary judgment on liability, denied Owner's motion to dismiss, and denied Nygard's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Owner summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Nygard International Partnership and dismissing all claims against Nygard NY Retail, LLC, while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision. The court found that O'Leary was engaged in construction work, a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 (b) (4) occurred due to negligence, and New York law governed the third-party claims.

Construction accidentLabor Lawindemnificationsummary judgmentvicarious liabilityelectrical shockpremises liabilitythird-party claimschoice of lawcomparative negligence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F. Garofalo Electric Co. v. New York University

This case involves an electrical contractor, F. Garofalo Electric Co., Inc. (FGE), and New York University (NYU) in a dispute regarding electrical work on a construction project. FGE sued NYU for payment and damages due to delays, while NYU counterclaimed for costs to complete the work FGE allegedly failed to perform. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to NYU, dismissing FGE's claims and awarding NYU on its counterclaims. On appeal, this decision was modified: the appellate court denied NYU's motion for summary judgment concerning FGE's breach of contract claim and NYU's counterclaims, citing triable issues of fact regarding FGE's substantial performance. However, the dismissal of FGE's second cause of action for extracontractual work was affirmed due to a lack of required documentation.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentSubstantial PerformanceAppellate ReviewMaterial Issues of FactContractual ObligationsScheduling DisputesElectrical ContractorCounterclaims
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The plaintiff Union filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to compel arbitration of twelve grievances against the defendant company. The defendant had refused arbitration, arguing that the grievances were nonarbitrable under exclusionary clauses in their collective bargaining agreement. The court, applying principles from the Steelworkers cases and Carey v. General Electric Co., determined that the agreement's exclusionary clauses limited the arbitrator's award-making authority but did not strip them of jurisdiction to hear the grievances. The court also rejected the defendant's ancillary arguments regarding laches, NLRB exclusive jurisdiction, and potential unfair labor practices. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion, holding all grievances were subject to arbitration.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationGrievancesSummary JudgmentLabor LawContract InterpretationArbitrabilityExclusionary ClausesAward-Making AuthorityJurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1994

National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Co.

Plaintiffs, the National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) and Local 41 Funds, initiated this action under ERISA to recover delinquent contributions from Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Company, Inc., Kenneth P. Heary, and Edwin W. Heary. The defendants asserted counterclaims and a third-party complaint, alleging RICO violations and other claims against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), National Electrical Contractor’s Association (NECA), Local 41, and individual union officers, claiming the collective bargaining agreements were invalid due to an alleged extortion scheme. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge Arcara reviewed de novo and adopted. The Court granted NEBF's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, dismissing the defendants' counterclaims. Motions to dismiss third-party claims against IBEW and NECA were granted, while Local 41's and other individual third-party defendants' dismissal motions were granted in part and denied in part, primarily concerning RICO allegations. The case was referred back for damages determination.

ERISARICOLMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentRacketeering ActivityExtortionHobbs ActFraud in the Inducement
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oppedisano v. Randall Electric, Inc.

Claimant, a journeyman electrician employed by Randall Electric, Inc., sought workers’ compensation benefits due to chemical and fume exposure. Randall Electric, Inc. argued for apportionment of liability, claiming Buckbee-Mears Cortland (BMC) was a special employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled against a special employment relationship, designating Randall as the sole employer. Randall appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that there was substantial evidence that BMC did not assume control over the claimant's work, thus failing to establish a special employment relationship.

special employmentworkers' compensation benefitsemployer liabilityapportionment of liabilitycontrol testappellate reviewjourneyman electricianchemical exposureWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 678 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