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. ADJ2681583 (MON 0239411)
Regular
May 01, 2012

GUILLERMINA GONZALEZ vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JOBBERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE (CIGA) by BROADSPIRE, for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE, in liquidation

In *Gonzalez v. Southern California Jobbers*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. The Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. This order signifies the matter is not yet finalized on its merits.

Reconsideration OrderRescindedFurther ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGABroadspireLiquidationSouthern California Jobbers
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Fish Smokers Trade Council, Inc.

This civil suit, filed under the Sherman Act, targeted the Fish, Sea Food, Smoked Fish and Canning Workers Union and its officers for allegedly conspiring to suppress competition in the smoked fish market. The conspiracy involved forcing independent jobbers to join the Union, boycotting non-union jobbers, allocating customers, and imposing fines for competition, all in restraint of interstate trade. The court found that the jobbers were independent businessmen, not a labor group, and their forced unionization and anti-competitive agreements were not protected by labor laws. Concluding that the Union's actions were designed to suppress competition rather than settle a labor dispute, the court asserted jurisdiction and ordered a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent the continuation of these unlawful activities.

Sherman ActAntitrustLabor UnionTrade RestraintConspiracySmoked Fish IndustryJobbersBoycottInjunctionNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

This case involves an action initially brought in state court by Billy Jack for Her, Inc., an apparel jobber, against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear and Allied Workers’ Union. Billy Jack alleged tortious interference with contractual relations due to the Union's picketing aimed at securing a 'Hazantown agreement.' The Union removed the case to federal court. The court denied Billy Jack's motion to remand, ruling that the state law claim was preempted by federal labor law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. The Union's motion to modify a temporary restraining order was denied as moot because the order had already expired.

Labor disputeFederal preemptionTortious interference with contractPicketingHazantown agreementNational Labor Relations ActNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(B)NLRA Section 8(b)(7)(A)Removal jurisdictionFederal question jurisdiction
References
69
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

Budget Dress Corp. v. Joint Board of Dress & Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York

The plaintiff, a jobber in the dress industry, sought a federal injunction to prevent the collection of a New York State court money judgment. This judgment confirmed an arbitration award against the plaintiff for failing to contribute to health, welfare, and retirement funds, and for using non-union contractors, in violation of collective bargaining agreements. The plaintiff argued the demands were unlawful under the Labor Management Relations Act and that the collective agreements violated the Sherman Act. The federal court denied the plaintiff's motion, citing the Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283), the plaintiff's failure to properly litigate the illegality claims in state court, and the absence of demonstrated irreparable harm. The court found that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to raise its arguments in state court and did not carry the burden for a preliminary injunction.

InjunctionLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardSherman ActFederal JurisdictionState Court JudgmentIrreparable HarmSupersedeas BondAnti-Injunction Act
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sainer v. Affiliated Dress Manufacturers Inc.

An individual dress contractor, referred to as the plaintiff, sought a declaratory judgment against several jobber associations, a contractor association, and labor unions, challenging a "Designation of Contractors" section within their collective agreement. The plaintiff alleged that this provision, which regulated contractor designations and work allocation in the dress industry, violated New York's Donnelly Anti-Trust Act (General Business Law § 340) by creating a monopoly and unfairly denying him work. Judge Levy, presiding, determined that the agreement was related to bona fide labor unions, thereby qualifying for an exemption under the Anti-Trust Act. The court emphasized that the challenged clauses were crucial for stabilizing the industry, protecting labor interests, and implementing a "share-the-work" plan. Ultimately, the court, exercising its discretion and finding the plaintiff's arguments insufficient and not in the public interest, granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Declaratory JudgmentAnti-Trust LawDonnelly ActLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementContractor DesignationIndustrial StabilizationMonopolyShare-the-Work PlanEmployer Associations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maisel v. Sigman

Plaintiffs, Maisel & Co., a manufacturing jobber, initiated an action against the Joint Board of Cloak, Skirt, Dress and Reefer Makers’ Union and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. They sought to invalidate a contract signed on July 5, 1923, alleging it was procured under duress and violated anti-monopoly and Penal Laws, besides lacking mutuality. The contract arose from a labor dispute and a strike after Maisel & Co. attempted to reorganize its business, leading to reduced in-house manufacturing and increased reliance on subcontractors. The court, presided over by Burr, J., meticulously reviewed the negotiations leading to the agreement and the subsequent actions of the plaintiffs, concluding that duress was not established. Furthermore, the court analyzed the contract's provisions against claims of illegality, finding that it did not create an illegal monopoly or violate labor laws, asserting workers' rights to combine and negotiate terms. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the agreement, dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, and granted judgment in favor of the defendants.

Contract disputeLabor disputeUnion agreementDuress defenseCoercionAnti-monopoly lawPenal law violationRestraint of tradeCollective bargainingStrike action
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377

The Attorney-General initiated an action seeking a permanent injunction against the Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377, its president Murray Brodsky, and business agent Jack Flaum. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in an illegal combination, violating New York's Donnelly Anti-Trust Law (General Business Law § 340), by coercing manufacturers and retailers in the smoked fish industry to deal exclusively with Distributors Division members. Although the defendants claimed exemption as a bona fide labor union, the court found that the Distributors Division was merely a jobbers association disguised as a union to create a monopoly and restrain trade. The organization's activities involved threats, intimidation, and misleading picketing to compel adherence to its demands, ultimately harming competition and forcing retailers to pay higher prices. Consequently, the court ruled that the injunction should be granted, concluding that the Distributors Division was not a legitimate labor union and its practices were illegal.

anti-trustmonopolylabor unioninjunctiontrade restraintGeneral Business LawDonnelly Actjobbers associationcoercionpicketing
References
3
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
Showing 1-9 of 9 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