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. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
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

Ley v. Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A

Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition against the Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (Union) seeking a preliminary injunction. Ley alleged that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Xerox Corporation (Employer) constituted an unlawful 'union signatory' agreement under Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, Ley claimed that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII violated Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Union argued that Article XXII was a lawful work preservation provision. The Court found reasonable cause to believe the Union was violating the Act and that a preliminary injunction was just and proper to prevent further statutory violations and maintain public interest. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining the Union from enforcing Article XXII.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActUnion Signatory AgreementWork PreservationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingArbitrationDistrict Court
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1959

Anzio Frocks, Inc. v. Joint Board Dress & Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York

Anzio Frocks, Inc. sought an order to enjoin arbitration proceedings initiated by the Joint Board Dress and Waistmakers’ Union of Greater New York and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union, citing alleged violations of a Collective Agreement. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the unions because service on their attorneys was deemed ineffective. Furthermore, Anzio failed to demonstrate any basis for irreparable damage, and the court noted a history of delaying tactics by Anzio. Consequently, the court denied Anzio's petition to enjoin the arbitration.

ArbitrationInjunctionJurisdictionService of ProcessCollective AgreementIrreparable DamageLabor UnionStay OrderDelaying TacticsFederal Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1996

Trustees of the Health & Welfare & the Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards v. Schlesinger Bros.

Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards and Esther Maiese, filed an action against Schlesinger Brothers, Inc. and the International Leather Goods, Plastics, Novelty and Service Workers Union, alleging violations of ERISA and LMRA. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached ERISA's 'sole benefit rule' by diverting contributions from the FJBC Funds to the International's Funds. They also alleged that Schlesinger violated the collective bargaining agreement under LMRA. The court determined that Schlesinger did not act as a fiduciary under ERISA and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the LMRA claim against the employer. Similarly, the court found that the International union was not subject to fiduciary duties under ERISA when engaged in collective bargaining. Consequently, the court granted Schlesinger's motion to dismiss the entire complaint and the International's motion to dismiss the ERISA claim, leaving only the LMRA claim against the International viable.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissPension FundsHealth and Welfare FundsUnionEmployer LiabilityStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amalgamated Service & Allied Industries Joint Board v. Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a joint board representing workers, sued several laundry businesses for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging that the defendants constituted a single employer and failed to provide proper notice of termination. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment against the 'Karten defendants' (Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc. and related entities) due to their failure to secure legal representation after their original counsel was disqualified. The court also denied defendant 2350 Fifth Avenue Corp.'s belated motion to amend its answer to assert a 'good faith' defense under the WARN Act, citing undue delay, potential prejudice to plaintiffs, and futility. Final judgment was entered against the Karten defendants for over $600,000, including attorneys' fees, and other defendants were dismissed by agreement or order.

WARN ActDefault JudgmentRule 54(b) CertificationGood Faith DefenseCorporate VeilAttorney DisqualificationStatutory DamagesBack PayMass LayoffPlant Closing
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2005

Vita v. New York Waste Services, LLC

In an action for personal injuries, the defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss their sixth, seventh, eighth, and eleventh affirmative defenses. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated the lack of merit of these defenses. The defenses were based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiffs provided substantial evidence that the injured plaintiff was employed by Allied Waste Services, Inc. and its subsidiary, Island Waste Services, and was injured by a vehicle owned by defendant New York Waste Services, LLC and operated by defendant Gene R. Brewer. The defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to counter these claims, particularly regarding their assertions of the injured plaintiff being an employee of New York Waste, or that New York Waste was an alter ego, joint venture, or special employer.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAffirmative DefensesMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(b)Appellate ReviewEmployment RelationshipAlter EgoJoint VentureSpecial Employee
References
10
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federated Mutual Insurance v. Woodstock '99, LLC

Plaintiff Federated Mutual Insurance Co., as subrogee of American Hardwall Supply Company of Rome, initiated an action against Woodstock ’99, LLC, seeking to recover over $600,000 for property damage sustained by its insured at the Woodstock ’99 festival. Woodstock, in turn, filed a third-party action against Ace Hardware Corporation. The central dispute revolved around Federated's motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss Woodstock’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense, which asserted a waiver of subrogation. The court analyzed whether a waiver of subrogation clause in the Woodstock agreement was incorporated by reference into a separate letter agreement between Ace and American. Ultimately, the court determined that the American letter agreement merely referenced the Woodstock agreement for informational purposes and did not demonstrate a clear intent to bind American to the subrogation waiver. Consequently, the court granted Federated's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed Woodstock’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense, alongside its Eleventh Affirmative Defense by stipulation.

Summary JudgmentSubrogationContract InterpretationInsurance PolicyWaiver ClauseIncorporation by ReferenceProperty DamageNegligence ClaimThird-Party ActionFestival Liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,437 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