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
Aug 19, 1981

Blyer v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

The National Labor Relations Board sought a preliminary injunction against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear, and Allied Workers’ Union, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILG) for alleged unfair labor practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(D), related to picketing for a jobber’s agreement. The court examined the applicability of the garment-industry proviso in NLRA Section 8(e) to the alleged work-assignment dispute. It found that the Board's theory was novel and lacked sufficient factual findings. Considering factors like the ILG's initial lawful picketing, the employer's non-innocent status, and the desire to preserve the status quo, the court denied the injunction, concluding it would be inequitable and improper.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticePreliminary InjunctionNLRAGarment Industry ProvisoWork Assignment DisputeJobber's AgreementPicketingSecondary BoycottGarment Union
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amstar Corp. v. United Sugar Workers Local 9

In this action under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, the plaintiff, a Delaware corporation operating a sugar refinery in Brooklyn, sought a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendant union from striking in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. The union engaged in a two-day walkout, asserting the plaintiff breached a 'no reprisal' commitment made during contract negotiations. The court found a binding agreement in effect that mandated arbitration for disputes and included a 'no-strike' clause. The union's attempt to rescind the contract was rejected. The court concluded that the dispute was arbitrable and that injunctive relief was warranted under equitable principles to preserve the integrity of the arbitration process and prevent further injury. The application for a preliminary injunction was granted, restraining future strikes related to the dispute and directing the parties to submit the matter to arbitration.

Labor Management Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationUnion DisputeContract InterpretationIrreparable InjuryMootness
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Dunlop Tire Corp.

The plaintiff filed an action under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act against Dunlop Tire Corporation and United Rubber Workers Local 135, alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement and failure of fair representation following her termination. She sought damages, reinstatement, and restoration of seniority rights. The defendants moved to reconsider a Magistrate's Order granting the plaintiff a jury trial. This Court, acknowledging the lack of clear historical precedent for hybrid section 301 actions, reviewed conflicting judicial interpretations regarding the right to a jury trial. Relying on federal policy favoring jury trials and analogies to legal malpractice claims, the Court affirmed the Magistrate's Order.

Labor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationJury Trial RightSeventh AmendmentHybrid ActionAppellate ReviewMagistrate's OrderEmployment Termination
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Calhoon

Anderson Austin, a long-standing member of The National Marine Engineer’s Beneficial Association (MEBA), filed a suit against Jesse M. Calhoon, Chairman of the MEBA Pension Trust, seeking a disability pension. Austin, who had suffered from a duodenal ulcer since 1961, applied for the pension in 1967, but his application was rejected by the Board of Trustees in 1971 based on a medical judgment. Calhoon moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that Austin's claim involved a uniquely private medical judgment rather than an issue of contract interpretation or union interests, thus falling outside the scope of Section 301 jurisdiction.

Labor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRAPension BenefitsDisability PensionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissCollective Bargaining AgreementMedical JudgmentIndividual RightsUnion Interests
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regan v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Plaintiffs Rishe and Regan sued District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and eight individual representatives, alleging a breach of a collective bargaining agreement for condoning their wrongful discharge and termination of employment without proper cause. The original complaints, based on diversity of citizenship, were dismissed. Amended complaints asserted jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 102 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The court denied District 50's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding a valid cause of action under Section 301. However, the motion of the individual Representatives to dismiss was granted, as Section 301(b) precludes enforcing judgments against a labor organization's members individually.

Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful DischargeUnion Duty to EnforceJurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor Organization LiabilityIndividual Representative LiabilityBreach of Contract
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newmark & Lewis, Inc. v. Local 814, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Newmark & Lewis (plaintiff) sought to remand its action to state court, challenging Local 814's (defendant) demand for arbitration. Local 814 had removed the case to federal court, asserting the dispute over a collective bargaining agreement fell under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Newmark & Lewis argued no such agreement existed with Local 814 and its state court petition lacked a federal question. The court denied the remand motion, ruling it had federal jurisdiction under Section 301 to determine if Newmark & Lewis was a 'joint employer' and therefore bound by the collective bargaining agreement, noting Section 301's complete pre-emption doctrine.

Federal JurisdictionRemovalRemandWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleLMRA Section 301Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationJoint EmployerFederal PreemptionLabor Dispute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 1979

Umeko, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers Union

Umeko, Inc. (petitioner) moved to stay arbitration with the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers Union (respondent). The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Primrose Sportswear, Inc., which was later sold to Umeko. Umeko challenged its obligation under a successorship clause, initiating an NLRB unfair labor practice charge. The court initially issued a temporary restraining order on March 12, 1979, but later denied Umeko's motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO on March 20, 1979, citing Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Subsequently, the Union sought attorneys' fees of $1,061.00 from Northwestern National Insurance Co., surety on Umeko's bond, arguing the TRO was erroneously granted under Section 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The court denied the Union's motion, finding a waiver and concluding that a stay of arbitration is not the type of 'injunction' to which Section 7 applies.

Labor LawArbitrationNorris-LaGuardia ActTemporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionAttorneys' FeesCollective Bargaining AgreementSuccessorshipWaiverSurety Bond
References
3
Case No. 03-09-00682-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2011

Austin ISD, Self-Insured v. Charles M. Manbeck

This case originated from a workers' compensation dispute where Austin ISD (AISD), a self-insured governmental entity, sought judicial review of a Division of Workers’ Compensation decision regarding the extent of Charles M. Manbeck's injury. Manbeck, the claimant, counterclaimed for attorneys' fees under Labor Code section 408.221(c). AISD later non-suited its judicial-review claim, and the case proceeded solely on Manbeck's counterclaim for attorneys' fees. The district court awarded Manbeck $36,000 for trial-level fees incurred before AISD's non-suit, $17,415 for fees incurred after the non-suit, and contingent appellate attorneys' fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the award of $36,000 for fees incurred prior to AISD's non-suit but reversed and rendered judgment that Manbeck take nothing on the claims for fees incurred after the non-suit and contingent appellate fees, holding that Labor Code section 408.221(c) does not authorize recovery of 'fees for fees'.

Workers' Compensation ActAttorneys' FeesJudicial ReviewExtent of InjurySelf-Insured EntityLabor Code Section 408.221(c)American RuleFee ShiftingStatutory ConstructionSufficiency of Evidence
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 6,668 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