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

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Portlette v. Toussaint

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action regarding breach of a duty of fair representation, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support the claim. The decision cited several precedents to support the dismissal. Additionally, the plaintiff's other arguments were found to be without merit.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAppellate AffirmationCivil ProcedureCPLR 3211Rockland CountySupreme CourtSufficiency of Pleadings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coureau v. Granfield

Plaintiff Victor Coureau commenced a pro se action against Bill Granfield, President of Local 100 UNITE HERE, alleging various wrongs including personal injuries, termination of benefits, fraudulent inducement, and racial discrimination. The Court construed these allegations as arising from the Union's duty of fair representation and/or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, primarily due to the claims being barred by the six-month statute of limitations for breach of the duty of fair representation. Additionally, the Title VII claim failed because a breach of the duty of fair representation was not established and the plaintiff did not plead exhaustion of administrative remedies with the EEOC.

Duty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantTitle VII Civil Rights ActLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActUnion GrievanceRacial DiscriminationEmployment Termination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snay v. U.S. Postal Service

The plaintiff, a former United States Postal Service (USPS) employee, initiated a lawsuit against her former employer, USPS, and her union, the American Postal Workers Union Local 390. She alleged that USPS improperly denied her FMLA leave and subsequently terminated her employment, while the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to adequately process her grievances and misleading her about their status. Additionally, the plaintiff brought claims of gender and disability discrimination against both defendants. The defendants sought to dismiss the breach of collective bargaining agreement and duty of fair representation claims as untimely, and the state law discrimination claims on grounds of federal preemption. The court denied dismissal for the breach of contract and duty of fair representation claims, deeming them timely, but granted dismissal for all state law discrimination claims against both the Union and USPS due to federal preemption.

FMLADuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationPreemptionStatute of LimitationsHybrid ActionMotion to Dismiss
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lahendro v. New York State United Teachers Ass'n

Plaintiff Michael F. Lahendro, a guidance counselor, sued the New York State United Teachers Association (NYSUT) and Brushton-Moira Teachers Association for breach of the duty of fair representation and negligence after NYSUT failed to timely file a demand for a hearing against his employment termination. This oversight led Lahendro to accept a settlement including retirement. Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which the Supreme Court denied, leading to this appeal. The appellate court reversed, dismissing the breach of fair representation claim based on the 'Martin v Curran' rule, which requires proving all individual union members authorized or ratified the conduct for suits against unincorporated associations, which plaintiffs could not do. Additionally, the negligence claim was dismissed as actions against unions for duties under collective bargaining agreements must be for breach of fair representation.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationNegligenceUnincorporated AssociationMartin v Curran RuleEducation LawCPLRLate FilingSettlement AgreementEmployment TerminationGuidance Counselor
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lalley v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

This case involves a hybrid lawsuit filed by a former employee ("Plaintiff") against his former employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and his union, United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 2603. The Plaintiff alleged that Bethlehem breached their Collective Bargaining Agreement by recalling less senior employees to his former department after he had voluntarily taken severance. He also claimed the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to process his grievance regarding these recalls. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was untimely and lacked merit. The court determined the plaintiff's claim was timely under the six-month statute of limitations for hybrid § 301/fair representation claims. However, on the merits, the court found no genuine issues of material fact indicating that Bethlehem Steel Corporation breached the CBA, concluding that the recalls were consistent with the CBA's seniority provisions, including those for craft status employees. Consequently, as the employer's breach was not established, the court did not need to address the union's duty of fair representation claim under Vaca v. Sipes. The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployee SenioritySeverance BenefitsEmployee RecallGrievance ProcessStatute of LimitationsContract Breach
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case, presided over by District Judge Spatt, addresses post-trial motions concerning attorney's fees and damages following a class action. Initially, plaintiffs sued employer Robert Abbey, Inc. under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN) (settled for $110,000) and both the employer and Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of fair representation. After class decertification, the claims of fourteen plaintiffs against the Union went to a jury, which found the Union liable for breaching its duty of fair representation and awarded compensatory damages to eight of them. The Court denied the Union's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law but vacated the jury's compensatory damage award, instead granting nominal damages of $1 to each of the eight prevailing plaintiffs due to lack of evidentiary support for the monetary award. The Court also determined that plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to recover attorney's fees for the Union's breach of duty of fair representation, calculating these fees based on reasonable hours and rates, and awarded specific amounts to the law firms Hall & Sloan ($4,775.00) and Davis & Eisenberg ($42,475.00), for a total of $47,250.00. Additionally, the Court awarded $1,177.15 in costs and denied the plaintiffs' application for an award of prejudgment interest.

Attorney's FeesNominal DamagesBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActSettlementJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsLodestar MethodClass Action Decertification
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliva v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, Local One

This action stems from an employment dispute involving Carmine Oliva, his labor union Local One, and his former employer Capitol, along with union Vice-President Louis Damato. Oliva sued the defendants, alleging false representations by Local One leading him to waive arbitration, and breaches of the duty of fair representation and contract. He also claimed Capitol breached the collective bargaining agreement. The court asserted federal jurisdiction over Oliva's claims under the duty of fair representation and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding Oliva's claims lacked merit because he admitted to the theft that led to his termination, thus negating his claim of detrimental reliance. The defendants' request for litigation costs was denied.

Employment DisputeLabor LawDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionBreach of ContractFraudEmployee Termination
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matos v. Aeronaves De Mexico, S.A.

Hector Matos sued his former employer, Aeronaves De Mexico, S.A., and his union, District 146 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, alleging wrongful discharge and breach of the duty of fair representation, respectively. Matos was terminated for insubordination after refusing to perform cashier duties, arguing a lack of proper training. The union negotiated Matos's return to work on the condition that his grievance hearing would be final and binding, thereby waiving arbitration. Matos contended he was unaware of this crucial agreement. The court found no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union in handling Matos's grievance, noting the benefits he received from the negotiated settlement. Consequently, as the prerequisite breach of the duty of fair representation was not established, Matos's claim against Aeronaves for wrongful discharge was also dismissed. The judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims.

Wrongful DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementInsubordinationAirline IndustryRailway Labor ActGrievance ProcedureWaiver of ArbitrationFinal and Binding DecisionUnion Discretion
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 4,596 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