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

In re the Arbitration Between Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. & Freeman

This case involves Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS) seeking to stay arbitration initiated by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Local 1212 (the Union). The Union cross-moved to compel arbitration concerning video tape recording jurisdiction and alleged violations of their collective bargaining agreement dated May 1, 1958. CBS argued that the Union's demands did not involve specific grievances and were untimely. The court, presided over by William O. Hecht, Jr., J., ruled that the demand for arbitration, including questions of subcontracting within and potentially outside specified territorial limitations and alleged violations of Sections 1.04, 1.05, and 6.01, was arbitrable. The court emphasized the policy of encouraging arbitration and rejected CBS's arguments regarding the specificity of grievances, timeliness, and alleged illegality of certain arbitration items. The motion to stay arbitration was denied, and the cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted for both items.

ArbitrationCollective BargainingLabor LawSubcontractingContract DisputeJurisdictionUnion RightsEmployer ObligationsGrievance ProcedureNational Labor Relations Act
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arteaga v. Bevona

The case involves Armando Arteaga, a porter dismissed by International Service Systems, Inc. (ISS) for alleged wine theft. Arteaga pursued a grievance through his union, Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, leading to arbitration. Initially, Arteaga won a default award, but ISS successfully reopened the case due to an industry-wide strike. A subsequent arbitration, where Arteaga was represented by union counsel Amy Spivak, resulted in the arbitrator crediting ISS's version of events and denying Arteaga's grievance. Arteaga then filed a hybrid § 301/fair representation claim, alleging the Union breached its duty of fair representation and ISS breached the collective bargaining agreement. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Arteaga failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Union's actions, even if tactical errors or negligence, amounted to arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct that seriously undermined the arbitral process. Consequently, Arteaga's entire complaint was dismissed.

Wrongful TerminationBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActSummary JudgmentArbitration AwardUnion GrievanceEmployee DismissalTactical ErrorsNegligence
References
16
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
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

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
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

Sperry Systems Management Division v. Engineers Union, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

This case concerns a labor dispute between Sperry Systems Management Division and the Engineers Union regarding subcontracting. Sperry sought to enjoin arbitration, while the Union counterclaimed to compel it, both filing motions for summary judgment. The central issue was whether a grievance, challenging the presence of subcontractor employees in Sperry's plant, was arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement's clause explicitly excluding subcontracting decisions. The court, led by Judge Bauman, determined that the issue of arbitrability was for judicial determination, not the arbitrator. Finding the exclusionary clause clear and unambiguous, the court granted Sperry's motion, thereby enjoining the arbitration and denying the Union's counterclaim.

Labor DisputeArbitration EnjoinedCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontracting ClauseSummary JudgmentArbitrabilityContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureLabor Management Relations ActExclusionary Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. 850 Third Avenue Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Blasina Cruz was injured when a window fell from 850 Third Avenue. She initiated an action against the building owner, lessee, and sublessee. The owner subsequently brought a third-party action against John F. Davie Co., who then filed a fourth-party action against I.S.S. International Service System, Inc. (ISS), a cleaning services contractor. ISS moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of control over the instrumentality causing the accident, which was initially denied. The appellate court unanimously reversed the denial, finding the circumstantial evidence insufficient to establish ISS's exclusive control or interdependence with other defendants, thereby dismissing the complaint against ISS.

Summary judgmentNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturPremises liabilityFourth-party actionAppellate decisionWindow fallCausationEvidentiary proofCircumstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Century Vertical Systems, Inc. v. Local No. 1, International Union of Elevator Constructors

Plaintiff Century Vertical Systems, Inc. (PRO Elevator) filed an action against defendant Local No. 1, International Union of Elevator Constructors, seeking to enjoin arbitration concerning alleged non-compliance with a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the plaintiff was bound to arbitrate. The court examined the "substantial continuity of identity" between Vertical and its predecessor, Century Industrial Services (PRO Elevator Services, Inc.), focusing on factors like shared business operations, name, location, and customer base. Despite Vertical's workforce not being overwhelmingly composed of former Industrial employees, the court found sufficient continuity, especially considering the circumstances of the work stoppage. Concluding that Vertical was a successor to Industrial for the purpose of the arbitration agreement, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSuccessor LiabilityLabor LawSummary JudgmentFederal CourtUnionEmployerInjunctionContract Dispute
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 2,153 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