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

Claim of Jones v. Chevrolet-Tonawanda Division, GMC

This case involves appeals from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a self-insured employer’s entitlement to credit for holiday wages paid to disabled employees. Claimants Hanks and Jones were injured during employment, resulting in lost time, including holidays. The employer paid them compensation for lost time but also provided full wages for holidays as per collective bargaining agreements, subsequently seeking reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4)(a). The Board denied these reimbursement requests, stating that holiday pay was a contractual right and not intended to be in lieu of compensation. The appellate court reversed the Board’s decisions, ruling that denying reimbursement would lead to claimants receiving both full wages and compensation for the holidays, creating an imbalance. Therefore, the employer is entitled to reimbursement, and the matters are remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' CompensationHoliday PayReimbursementCollective Bargaining AgreementDisabled EmployeesLost WagesSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration Between Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n & Monroe County

The petitioner, representing Deputy Sheriffs, challenged an arbitration award concerning holiday pay. Five Deputy Sheriffs, scheduled to work on July 4, 2011, received only eight hours of holiday pay despite being granted the day off, not their regular shift pay plus holiday pay. The petitioner argued that the collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249 mandated additional payment. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding neither required the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed this award, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no excess of arbitral power, no irrational construction of the CBA, and no violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceArbitration AwardPublic PolicyMilitary LawHoliday PayDeputy SheriffsCPLR Article 75AffirmanceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDaniel Ford, Inc. v. Local 259, United Automobile Workers

Plaintiff McDaniel Ford, Inc. laid off three employees, prompting a grievance by defendant Local 259 of the United Automobile Workers. An arbitrator ruled the layoff proper but awarded the employees holiday pay. McDaniel Ford petitioned to vacate the holiday pay award, but the case was removed to federal court. Judge Wexler affirmed the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring arbitration and judicial deference to such awards. The court denied McDaniel Ford's petition to vacate and ordered payment of the holiday pay.

Labor LawArbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday Pay DisputeLayoff GrievanceFederal Court JurisdictionJudicial Review of ArbitrationUAWEmployer-Employee RelationsUSC Section 185
References
7
Case No. No. 95
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

The Matter of John Borelli v. City of Yonkers

This case addresses a dispute between the City of Yonkers and 39 of its permanently disabled, retired firefighters regarding the calculation of their General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) supplement. The core issue is whether certain compensation, specifically holiday pay, check-in pay, and night differential, constitutes “regular salary or wages” for the purpose of this supplement. The Court concluded that “regular salary or wages” includes monetary compensation to which current firefighters are contractually entitled based on the performance of their regular job duties, thus requiring the inclusion of holiday pay and check-in pay. However, it excludes monetary compensation based on the performance of additional responsibilities beyond their regular job duties, and therefore, night differential should not be included. The lower court's decision was modified to reflect this interpretation.

General Municipal Law 207-aDisabled Firefighters' BenefitsRegular Salary CalculationCollective Bargaining Agreement InterpretationHoliday Pay EntitlementCheck-in Pay DisputesNight Differential ExclusionMunicipal Financial BurdenStatutory Remedial PurposePublic Sector Employment
References
22
Case No. CA 13-01106
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2014

MONROE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S, MTR. OF

Petitioner, a bargaining representative for Deputy Sheriffs, sought to vacate an arbitration award that denied a grievance concerning holiday pay for five members on July 4, 2011. The Deputy Sheriffs were granted the day off with pay but were not compensated for their regular shifts in addition to the holiday pay, which petitioner alleged violated their collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding that neither the CBA nor Military Law § 249 mandated the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the arbitrator did not exceed his authority, his construction of the CBA was not irrational, and the award did not violate public policy.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday Pay DisputeMilitary Law BenefitsGrievance DenialDeputy SheriffsPublic PolicyVacate ArbitrationAppellate ReviewLabor Relations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between George Rattray & Co. & Trenz

Petitioner, George Battray & Company, Inc., sought to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent union following the sale of its assets by Hardwick, Hindle, Inc. (its parent company) to Instruments for Industry, Inc. and the subsequent termination of all employees. The union raised nine issues for arbitration, later reducing them to six. The court analyzed whether these disputes were arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, which required disputes to arise under the agreement and concern its interpretation. The court found that the union failed to present sufficient evidentiary facts to establish an arbitrable dispute regarding the employer's good faith in terminating business, plant relocation, lockout, or the obligation for the purchaser to assume the collective bargaining agreement. However, the court determined that an arbitrable dispute existed concerning the 'floating' holiday pay, as the right to this pay accrued on the first day of the year. The stay of arbitration was granted for all issues except the 'floating' holiday pay.

arbitration staycollective bargaining agreementemployee terminationasset saleunion disputegood faith business terminationarbitrabilityfloating holiday paysuccessor clause interpretationlabor law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. & Local 484, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers

This case involves a petitioner's motion to vacate an arbitration award and an employer's cross-motion to confirm it. The core dispute concerns an employee's entitlement to pay for a day missed due to illness during a holiday week in 1959. The employee worked for a short period on Labor Day, was then excused due to illness, and remained ill the following Tuesday. The employer paid for the holiday and other workdays but not for Tuesday, arguing that existing benefits provided a maximum of a normal week's pay. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by modifying the contract. However, the court ruled that the arbitrator acted within his powers by interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the motion to vacate the award was denied, and the cross-motion to confirm the award was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday PaySick PayContract InterpretationJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeEmployment LawMotion to VacateMotion to Confirm
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Findlay Industries, Inc.

The Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Findlay Industries Inc. for alleged unpaid contributions related to vacation and holiday pay, seeking back contributions, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief. Findlay Industries Inc. maintained that its collective bargaining agreements with four local unions only required contributions for 'hours worked,' not for vacation or holiday pay. The court found that Findlay had consistently contributed based on 'hours worked' since 1973, and the Fund had knowingly accepted this interpretation for many years. Despite previous audits and demands, the Fund's claims for additional contributions were rejected, and the court ruled that the collective bargaining agreements required contributions only for 'hours worked.' Consequently, all claims by the plaintiff Fund were dismissed on the merits.

Pension Fund DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementHours WorkedVacation PayHoliday PayERISALMRAContract InterpretationEmployer ContributionsTrust Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milan v. Trico Products Corp.

A claimant who was totally incapacitated due to a work injury received regular wages for a holiday during their incapacitation period but no disability payment for that day. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award, refusing to credit the employer's holiday payment against the compensation award, asserting the payment was a private union-employer matter beyond its jurisdiction. The self-insured employer sought reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law section 25 (subd 4, par [a]), contending their oral request for setoff prior to the award satisfied the statutory filing requirements. While the court agreed the employer substantially complied with the filing requirements, it ultimately affirmed the denial of reimbursement. The court reasoned that there was no evidence the holiday payment was intended as a substitute for compensation payments, and claimants can receive both holiday pay and compensation benefits concurrently.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementHoliday PayOral ClaimEmployer LiabilitySetoffStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board Jurisdiction
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,596 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