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

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 182 v. New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund

Plaintiff Teamsters Local Union No. 182 (Local 182) filed an action against the New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Funds) under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local 182 sought a declaration affirming the existence of valid collective bargaining agreements between April 1992 and March 1994, which mandated grievance and arbitration procedures, and an order compelling the Funds to arbitrate layoff-related grievances. The Union contended there was a long-standing oral agreement to adhere to applicable provisions of the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA). The Funds moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the existence of any agreement with requisite definiteness. The court denied the summary judgment motion, affirming subject matter jurisdiction and finding that Local 182 presented genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor DisputeUnion RightsGrievance ProcedureArbitrationSeniority RightsLayoffsNational Master Freight AgreementPension Benefits
References
24
Case No. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

National Ben. Fund, Etc. v. Presby. H., Etc.

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Frederick A. Baker & Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C.I.O.

This case concerns a motion filed by employers (movants) to stay an arbitration initiated by the Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, O.I.O. The dispute arose from the movants' refusal to contribute to the Local 65 insurance fund, as mandated by an August 1947 agreement, citing the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act). The movants argued that their contributions were unlawful under Section 302 of the Act due to the fund's lack of equal employer-employee representation. However, the court ruled that Section 302(g) exempts trust funds established before January 1, 1946, from this joint administration requirement. Since the union's fund was established in August 1945, it qualified for the exemption, irrespective of when individual employers began contributing. Consequently, the court denied the motion to stay arbitration.

Taft-Hartley ActLabor Management Relations ActUnion Welfare FundsTrust FundsEmployer ContributionsArbitration StayCollective Bargaining AgreementStatutory ExemptionJoint AdministrationLabor Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Allied Design & Construction, LLC

Petitioners, Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds, initiated an action to confirm an arbitration award against Allied Design & Construction, LLC. Allied, bound by a collective bargaining agreement, failed to undergo a payroll audit, leading the Funds to estimate a substantial deficiency in contributions. An arbitrator subsequently awarded the Funds $239,901.47, covering the estimated deficiency, interest, liquidated damages, and various fees. The Funds then sought to have this award confirmed by the District Court and requested additional attorneys' fees and costs incurred during the confirmation process. The District Court granted the petitioners' motions, confirming the arbitration award and ordering Allied to pay an additional $737.50 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Arbitration ConfirmationCollective BargainingDelinquent ContributionsAttorney Fees AwardCourt CostsLabor Management Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActSummary Judgment StandardLodestar CalculationUnion Welfare Funds
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Ass'n of Uptown Converters, Inc. & Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union

This case concerns an application for an injunction to stay action related to the designation of employer representatives for a security fund. The fund, contributed to by employers in contractual relations with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, provides employee benefits. Following the Taft-Hartley Law, which mandates equal representation in fund administration, trustees devised an election method for employer representatives. The petitioner employer association, dissatisfied with this method, demanded arbitration. The petitioner sought an injunction to halt the election process until arbitration concluded. The court, presided by Pecora, J., denied the application, citing a lack of legal warrant for such a procedure in a special arbitration proceeding and finding no irreparable injury would result from the election proceeding.

labour lawinjunctionarbitrationTaft-Hartley Actemployee benefitssecurity fundunion administrationemployer representationCivil Practice Actprocedural law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2003

Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401 (K) Retirement Funds v. Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing

The plaintiffs, Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401(k) Retirement Funds, sued defendant Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing, alleging violations of ERISA Section 515 and a collective bargaining agreement for failing to submit to an audit. Golden Eagles moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and the requirement for arbitration. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied the motion, finding that personal jurisdiction existed over Golden Eagles due to ERISA's nationwide service of process provision, and venue was proper in the Southern District of New York as the Funds are administered there. Furthermore, the court determined that the Local 8A-28A Funds, as independent non-signatory entities, were not bound by the arbitration clause present in the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. Consequently, Golden Eagles' motion to dismiss was denied.

ERISAPersonal JurisdictionVenueArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee BenefitsTrust FundsMotion to DismissNationwide Service of ProcessMinimum Contacts
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Reif & Williams Sportswear, Inc.

This case addresses whether a corporation is bound by an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement ratified by its predecessor partnership. The petitioner, Local 169 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, initiated arbitration against the respondent, Williams Sportswear Co., Inc., for defaulting on payments to employee funds. The corporation, formed by the same partners who ran the predecessor partnership, continued the same business in the same location and sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was not a party to the agreement. While the Special Term denied the stay, the Appellate Division reversed, absolving the corporation of the obligation. The higher court, however, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the corporation acts as an 'alter ego' of the original promoters and is thus bound by the collective bargaining agreement, emphasizing that a change in corporate form does not negate pre-existing contractual obligations when the underlying business remains unchanged. Therefore, arbitration was deemed enforceable.

Arbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining AgreementCorporate LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSuccessor EmployerStay of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionCorporate FormationContractual ObligationsUnion Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Progressive Casualty Insurance v. New York State Insurance Fund

Zimone Brown, a sanitation worker insured by the New York State Insurance Fund (NYSIF), was injured after being struck by an automobile insured by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (Progressive). The NYSIF sought reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits from Progressive through arbitration, citing Insurance Law § 5105. Progressive contended that the garbage truck was not 'involved' in the accident as statutorily required. Although the arbitration panel sided with NYSIF, the Supreme Court denied Progressive's petition to vacate the award. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no evidentiary support or rational basis for the arbitrators' determination, thus granting Progressive's petition and vacating the arbitration award.

Arbitration Award VacaturInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss Transfer ProvisionsStatutory InterpretationMotor Vehicle AccidentEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ScrutinyCPLR Article 75
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,781 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