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

Carey v. General Electric Company

This case involves a motion by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (Union) to compel General Electric Company (Company) to arbitrate twelve grievances. The District Court, presided over by Judge Palmieri, examined questions of governing law, procedural arbitrability, substantive arbitrability, and the effect of NLRB jurisdiction. The court applied federal labor law, resolving doubts in favor of arbitration, and found most grievances arbitrable. However, arbitration for National Docket No. 4557 was denied because the Union's claim was based on an unlawful contract provision that discouraged membership in other unions.

Labor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureProcedural ArbitrabilitySubstantive ArbitrabilityFederal Labor LawNLRB JurisdictionSeniority RightsWage DisputesJob Classification
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Brunswick Central School District & Brittonkill Teachers Ass'n

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the petitioner's application to stay arbitration. The petitioner and respondent, parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), were in dispute after the petitioner denied tenure to a probationary teacher and the respondent filed a grievance challenging evaluation procedures. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay, concluding that the grievance challenged the non-arbitrable tenure decision rather than the arbitrable evaluation procedures. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the question of whether the evaluation procedures were violated pertained to the merits of the grievance and not its arbitrability, emphasizing the limited role of courts in staying arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureTenure DisputeEvaluation ProceduresArbitrabilityStay of ArbitrationAppellate ReviewLabor RelationsEducation Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yonkers Electric Contracting Corp. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood Electrical Workers'

This case involves a dispute between Yonkers Electric Contracting Corporation and Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood Electrical Workers’ AFL-CIO regarding a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and its arbitration clause. The Union filed a grievance alleging violations of hiring provisions, but failed to adhere to the PLA's multi-step grievance procedure. A New York Supreme Court judge had previously stayed arbitration due to the Union's procedural non-compliance. Subsequently, the Union initiated a new grievance concerning the same alleged violations and sought to compel arbitration in federal court after removing the case from state court. The federal court, presided over by Judge McMahon, determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the federal action effectively sought to review or overturn the prior state court decision. The court found the new grievance concerned issues "inextricably intertwined" with the prior state court ruling. Consequently, the federal court granted Yonkers Electric's motion to remand the case back to the New York Supreme Court.

Rooker-Feldman doctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionRemandArbitration AgreementProject Labor AgreementGrievance ProcedureFederalismState Court Judgment ReviewLabor Management Relations ActCollateral Attack
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1981

Taylor v. Libous

The petitioner, a motor equipment operator for the City of Binghamton, was discharged after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct following an altercation with a co-worker. He challenged the dismissal, seeking reinstatement or a hearing under Civil Service Law section 75, or adherence to the collective bargaining agreement grievance procedure. The city argued his guilty plea negated the grievance process and that section 75 was inapplicable due to the collective bargaining agreement. Special Term dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not pursuing the available grievance procedure.

Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesCivil Service LawDischarge from EmploymentDisorderly ConductGuilty PleaArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeRosa v. Dyster

The dissenting judge, Garni, J., argues against the majority's decision in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The case involves a petitioner who retired from the City of Niagara Falls and was subsequently denied post-employment health insurance or opt-out payments, despite a memorandum of understanding with her union. Garni, J. contends that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies available through the collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedure. The dissent asserts that the grievance procedure applied to retirees and disputes over retirement benefits, and that the petitioner was aggrieved prior to her retirement, thus being obligated to pursue a grievance. Therefore, Garni, J. concludes that the petition should have been dismissed entirely due to the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Administrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineCPLR Article 78Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureRetiree BenefitsHealth InsuranceOpt-out PaymentsDissenting OpinionLabor Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought $419 in back vacation pay from the defendant, his former employer, under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in Henrietta Justice Court after being denied recovery through the initial steps of the grievance procedure, but before exhausting the final step of binding arbitration. The Monroe County Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the employee failed to exhaust all remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled that an employee must complete the grievance procedure, including arbitration, when the union is willing to pursue the grievance. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the judgment, vacated the complaint, and dismissed it, without costs.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaplan v. Ruggieri

Plaintiff David Kaplan sued St. John's University and several individuals alleging six causes of action, including breach of a collective bargaining agreement, breach of duty of fair representation, wrongful denial of tenure, and defamation. The core of Kaplan's claims revolved around being denied tenure, changes to his teaching schedule, and the Union's handling of his grievances. The court reviewed defendants' motion for summary judgment, noting that the facts were undisputed. The court dismissed all of Kaplan's claims, finding that his first claim lacked a genuine controversy, the second lacked allegations of bad faith against the Union, and the third and fourth failed due to non-exhaustion of grievance procedures. The fifth claim was dismissed because tenure decisions were excluded from grievance procedures, and the defamation claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Tenure DenialSummary JudgmentLabor-Management Relations ActBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementAcademic EmploymentDefamationExhaustion of RemediesFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Carey & Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves cross-appeals from an order of Special Term concerning the arbitration of discharge grievances in Buffalo and furlough grievances in Sharon under a collective bargaining agreement. The Special Term had denied arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances, which the appellate court found to be a misconception of the court's role in arbitration. The appellate court emphasized that only the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and a dispute thereunder should be considered, leaving matters of law and fact to the arbitrators. The court also deemed the question of public policy overriding arbitration rules premature. Regarding the Sharon furlough claims, the Special Term's decision to compel arbitration was affirmed, with the appellate court rejecting claims of Federal preemption. The final order was modified to grant the petitioner's motion to compel arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances and affirmed in all other respects.

ArbitrationCollective BargainingLabor DisputeDischarge GrievancesFurlough GrievancesCross-AppealSpecial Term OrderPublic PolicyFederal PreemptionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education v. West Hempstead Chapter Branch II of New York State Teachers Ass'n

The plaintiff school board sued to enjoin the defendant teachers association from issuing news releases and making public statements, arguing they violated their agreement and that grievance procedures should be used. The court denied the school board's motion for a temporary restraining order and granted the teachers association's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The court reasoned that the grievance procedure outlined in the agreement was designed for individual employee problems, not broad issues like those raised by the association's demands for resignations. Furthermore, the court emphasized that enjoining speech constituted an impermissible prior restraint, only justified in the narrowest exceptions, which were not met in this case.

Collective BargainingGrievance ProcedureFreedom of SpeechPrior RestraintPublic EmployeesTeachers UnionLabor DisputeInjunctionDismissal of ComplaintCross-Motion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2001

District No. 1-PCD v. Apex Marine Ship Management Co.

This case concerns an appeal to vacate an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance filed by District No. 1-PCD, Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (AFL-CIO) and Harry A. Kirmon. Kirmon, a discharged engineer, had his grievance dismissed by an arbitrator who found the Union failed to provide Kirmon's written statement to the Company, deeming it a procedural prerequisite. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal. However, the appellate court reversed, ruling that the arbitrator's decision did not derive its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, which only required the statement be given to the Union. The court concluded the arbitrator exceeded his authority by basing the dismissal on procedural grounds not outlined in the CBA's limitations on his jurisdiction.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingGrievance ProcedureArbitrator JurisdictionFederal Labor LawWrongful DischargeJudicial Review of ArbitrationUnion RightsEmployment TerminationContract Interpretation
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 2,705 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