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. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dow Electric, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 910

Plaintiff Dow Electric Inc. sought to vacate a Labor-Management Committee's award for violating collective bargaining agreements, while Defendant Local Union 910 IBEW counterclaimed for confirmation. The dispute centered on whether Dow Electric Inc. effectively terminated its collective bargaining authority with the Association before the 2000-2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) came into effect. The Court found that Plaintiff's July 31, 1998, letters unequivocally terminated the Association’s collective bargaining authority, and subsequent correspondence did not retract this. Therefore, the 2000-2003 CBA did not bind Plaintiff, and the Committee lacked jurisdiction over grievances based on it. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding the 2000-2003 CBA award, vacating the $991,629.89 award. However, the Court affirmed the Committee's $63,011.48 award for violations of the 1997-2000 CBA, ruling that disputes based on acts prior to an agreement's expiration can still be arbitrated, and the awards for interest, liquidated damages, and back pay were plausibly grounded in the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawUnionSummary JudgmentArbitrationContract TerminationMulti-Employer Bargaining UnitPre-hire AgreementGrievanceAudit
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stilsing Electric, Inc. v. Joyce

Plaintiff, an electrical contracting corporation, initiated a defamation action against the defendant, a business manager for IBEW Local Union No. 724. The defendant had investigated the plaintiff's apprenticeship program, believing it was non-compliant with state labor laws and regulations. He filed complaints with the State Department of Labor, leading to an administrative hearing. Although an initial review found the plaintiff's program compliant, the defendant's persistence led to a formal hearing where the Commissioner of Labor ultimately dismissed the defendant's complaint. The plaintiff then sued for defamation, alleging that the defendant's written and oral statements during this process led to loss of contracts with Albany County. Special Term denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that he was, at best, entitled to a qualified privilege and that issues of fact regarding malice existed. On appeal, the court determined that the administrative proceeding was quasi-judicial, based on its adversarial nature, reliance on law and facts, and susceptibility to judicial review under CPLR article 78. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant's communications were protected by an absolute privilege, thereby reversing Special Term's orders and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeAdministrative LawQuasi-Judicial ProceedingsLabor Law ComplianceApprenticeship ProgramsFreedom of ExpressionPublic Policy ArgumentsSummary Judgment Motion
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1964

United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Star Expansion Industries, Inc.

This case concerns a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) against Star Expansion Industries, Inc. and Local #1968, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). UE, newly certified as the bargaining agent, sought to displace IBEW in an ongoing arbitration concerning the discharge of employee Albert E. Dinges, which IBEW had commenced under its prior collective bargaining agreement. The court denied the injunction, affirming the arbitrator's decision that IBEW, as the union that initiated the grievance under its contract, retained the right to conclude the arbitration despite its decertification and contract expiration. The ruling emphasized the contractual nature of arbitration and the federal policy promoting industrial peace by allowing established proceedings to continue.

Collective BargainingUnion RepresentationArbitrationInjunctive ReliefDecertificationGrievanceLabor DisputeContractual ObligationFederal PolicyIndustrial Peace
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kozera v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Plaintiff Ted Kozera and other union members (Mekeel, Filardi) filed a lawsuit against the IBEW, Local 501, and NECA Chapter under the LMRA and LMRDA, alleging improper trusteeship and labor/management infractions. Kozera presented five claims, including restrictions on the right to sue and free speech, improper trusteeship, and unapproved collective bargaining agreements. The Court found in favor of the IBEW on the Article IV, § 3(9) and Trusteeship claims. However, the Court ruled in favor of Kozera against the IBEW and NECA Chapter on the Small Work Agreement claims, awarding nominal damages of $2.00 and $1.00 respectively, for breaching the IBEW Constitution and the 1989-92 CBA by implementing an unapproved small work agreement. The Pavillion Project claim was dismissed as not properly before the Court due to belated assertion.

Labor LawUnion TrusteeshipCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActFree Speech RightsRight to SueUnion DemocracyNominal DamagesUnapproved Agreement
References
29
Case No. No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Gallagher v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Michael Gallagher, a member of IBEW Local 43, sued the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its President J.J. Barry, IBEW Local 43, and several electrical contractors, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation. He claimed violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law § 296. The International defendants (IBEW and J.J. Barry) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name them in his administrative charges with the EEOC and NYSDHR, and that the claims were time-barred. The court granted the motion, finding that the "identity of interest" exception did not apply, thereby barring the ADEA claim against the International defendants. Additionally, the court ruled that Gallagher's state law claims were also time-barred due to failure to file within the statutory limits against the International defendants.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionsCollective BargainingHiring HallEEOCNYSDHRStatute of LimitationsJudgment on the PleadingsIdentity of Interest
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Plaintiff Dozier Washington, an African American employee of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, brought suit against his employer and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) after his 1994 demotion from electrician to meter reader. He alleged racial discrimination, a conspiracy to impair his rights under federal law and a collective bargaining agreement, and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Claims against the employer were previously dismissed. The court considered motions for summary judgment from IBEW and a cross-motion from Washington. The court granted IBEW's motion, dismissing all of Washington's remaining claims, citing insufficient evidence for the conspiracy and discrimination claims and finding the breach of duty of fair representation claim to be time-barred under both federal and New York state law. The court denied IBEW's counterclaim for attorney's fees and Washington's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, ultimately dismissing the suit in its entirety.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment LawUnion RepresentationSummary JudgmentFederal Civil RightsDemotionCollective Bargaining AgreementStatute of LimitationsConspiracyLabor Relations
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tobin v. Barry

Plaintiffs, members of IBEW Local 501, initiated a lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its Vice President J.J. Barry, Local 1249, several employer-contractors (Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc., L.K. Com-stock & Co., and Yonkers-Comstock Joint Venture), and their bargaining representative, the Northeastern Line Contractors Chapter (NLCC). The core of the dispute revolved around the IBEW's transfer of work assignment jurisdiction over a Metro North project from Local 501 to Local 1249 within Westchester County. Plaintiffs alleged breaches of the IBEW constitution, violations of Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and Section 101(a)(5) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), and breaches of duty of fair representation and contracts by the employer-contractors. The court granted NLCC's motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim against it, but denied other defendants' motions for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust intraunion remedies was excused due to union misdirection, and that their claims were timely filed under the applicable statutes of limitations.

Labor DisputeUnion JurisdictionBreach of Union ConstitutionLMRA Section 301LMRDA Section 101(a)(5)Exhaustion of Internal Union RemediesStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co.

The Trustee sought to confirm a plan of reorganization under Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, facing objections from the Debtor and general unsecured creditors. The plan relied on votes from two impaired classes: a post-petition secured lender and a trade union (IBEW). The court ruled that the post-petition secured lender was not entitled to vote as their claim did not fall under Section 502 of the Code. However, the court found that the separate classification of the IBEW's general unsecured claim, with a higher payout, was permissible and not unfairly discriminatory. This separate classification was deemed reasonable and necessary for the Debtor (Kliegl) to maintain its union shop status, which was critical for its industry operations. Consequently, the IBEW's vote in favor was valid, allowing the plan to be confirmed via cram-down despite other objections.

Bankruptcy LawReorganization PlanCramdown ConfirmationCreditor ClassificationImpaired ClaimsUnfair Discrimination TestLabor Union ClaimsPost-Petition ClaimsSecured CreditorsUnsecured Creditors
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Long Island Rail Road

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) sought a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) to prevent the assignment of its members to a 4 P.M. – 12 A.M. shift. IBEW argued this shift change violated their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and constituted a 'major dispute' under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), requiring judicial intervention. LIRR countered that the dispute was 'minor,' concerning the interpretation of the CBA's Rule 9A, and therefore fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitration board. The court found LIRR's arguments 'arguably justified' and not 'frivolous or obviously insubstantial,' relying on the language of Rule 9A and evidence of past practices. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, denied IBEW's motions for injunction, and dismissed the complaint.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementShift ChangeInjunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionArbitrationStatus QuoRule 9A
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 19 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