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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06406
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Gabel (Bankers Life & Cas. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Christopher M. Gabel, an insurance broker, sought unemployment insurance benefits after his agreement with Bankers Life and Casualty Company (BLC) was terminated. While an Administrative Law Judge initially denied benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, ruling that BLC was liable for contributions. The Board found that Gabel's services were not statutorily exempted under Labor Law § 511 (21) because his actual work was inconsistent with the contract's statutory provisions, and BLC maintained sufficient supervision and control to constitute an employment relationship. BLC appealed, contending its written agreement met the Labor Law requirements and that Gabel was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the actual performance of services must conform to the statutory provisions, not just their inclusion in the contract. The court also found substantial evidence that BLC exercised significant control over Gabel's work, thus establishing an employment relationship.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipInsurance AgentLabor Law § 511 (21)Unemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommon-Law TestEmployer Control
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laborers Local 91, Laborers International Union v. Building Industry Employers Ass'n

Plaintiff Laborers Local 91 sought to compel arbitration against defendants Building Industry Employers Association and Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc. concerning a work assignment dispute involving Iron Workers Local 9. Laborers Local 91 alleged a violation of its collective bargaining agreement when Higgins assigned work to Iron Workers Local 9. After resolution attempts via the Impartial Jurisdictional Dispute Board (IJDB) and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service failed, Laborers Local 91 initiated this action under the Labor Management Relations Act and the United States Arbitration Act. The court had previously ordered Iron Workers Local 9 to be joined as a defendant. Currently, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the court denies without prejudice due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the exclusivity of the IJDB forum, the Plan's intended preclusion of other remedies, and whether Iron Workers Local 9's agreement bars arbitration.

jurisdictional disputecollective bargaining agreementarbitrationsummary judgmentlabor management relations actunion disputework assignmenttripartite arbitrationImpartial Jurisdictional Dispute Boardfederal labor law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrand Optical Co. v. Local 475, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

The plaintiff, a New York corporation engaged in manufacturing optical goods for the U.S. Air Force, sought a preliminary injunction against an unincorporated labor organization representing its employees. The dispute stemmed from a strike in May 1956, despite a no-strike clause in an existing collective bargaining agreement. A subsequent agreement on July 6, 1956, aimed to resolve the issues, but the defendant union argued it was conditional on employee ratification and compliance with a return-to-work clause, neither of which occurred. The court determined the July 6th agreement was binding and that the ongoing situation did not constitute a 'labor dispute' under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, thus granting the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. This injunction prohibits the defendant from misrepresenting a strike or labor dispute, picketing under such pretext, and violating the July 6th agreement, but does not compel employees to return to work.

Labor LawInjunctionCollective BargainingStrikeNorris-LaGuardia ActTaft-Hartley ActContract DisputeFederal Court JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionRatification
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Kingsport Press, Inc.

The plaintiffs, officials of various labor unions, initiated class actions against the defendant, alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements due to the defendant's refusal to pay vacation pay on March 22, 1963. The employees ceased work on March 11, 1963, to commence an economic strike, thereby voluntarily terminating their employment before the specified vacation pay date. The court analyzed the collective bargaining agreements, emphasizing the clear language requiring employees to be "on the payroll" on the fourth Friday in March. The court concluded that striking employees, by voluntarily terminating their employment, did not meet the eligibility criteria for vacation pay. Consequently, the court found that the employees were not entitled to the relief sought.

Collective BargainingVacation PayLabor UnionsEconomic StrikeEmployment TerminationContract InterpretationEmployee RightsVested RightsPayroll EligibilityClass Action
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00229
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Patsis (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that Louiza Patsis, a linguist working for LIS, was an employee and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. LIS contended that Patsis was an independent contractor and challenged the Board's adherence to Department of Labor guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship. The court noted the control LIS exercised over its linguists through a written agreement and job assignments, and found no inconsistency with the Department of Labor guidelines.

unemployment insuranceemployment relationshipindependent contractorappellate divisionlabor lawunemployment benefitsstatutory interpretationsubstantial evidenceadministrative reviewlegal interpreting
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06405 [199 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Paratore (Bankers Life & Cas. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Paul Paratore, an insurance broker and agent, filed for unemployment insurance benefits after his relationship with Bankers Life and Casualty Company (BLC) ended. The Department of Labor determined him eligible, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found his services were not statutorily exempt and that BLC exercised sufficient control to establish an employment relationship under unemployment insurance law. BLC appealed, arguing its agreement satisfied Labor Law § 511 (21) and challenging the employment relationship finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, agreeing that the statutory requirements were not met and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship between BLC and the claimant.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorInsurance IndustryLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewControl TestStatutory InterpretationAgent AgreementBenefits Eligibility
References
10
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Compressed Air, Foundation, Tunnel, Caisson, Subway, Cofferdam, Sewer Construction Workers, Local No. 147 of New York, New Jersey States & Vicinity

The Regional Director of the Second District of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against a labor organization (the Union) under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Director believed the Union violated Sections 8(b)(3) and 8(d) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively and failing to provide proper notice for modification or termination of an existing collective bargaining agreement with Andrew Catapano Co., Inc. and Grow Construction Co., Inc. (C-G). The Union ceased work on a sewer construction project in Brooklyn, New York, arguing negotiations concerned a future contract, not modification of the current one. District Judge Bartels found reasonable cause to believe the work stoppage stemmed from a dispute over modifying an existing agreement without proper notice, constituting an unfair labor practice. The petition for injunction was granted, and a motion to amend the petition to include termination violation was also granted.

National Labor Relations ActInjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingContract ModificationContract TerminationWork StoppageLabor DisputeRegional Director NLRBSection 10(j)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Labor Relations Board v. Club Transportation Corp.

This case involves an employer, Club Transportation Corp., accused of an unfair labor practice by an entity referred to as "Appellant." The accusation stemmed from the employer's requirement that former employees of Suburban Bus Co., Inc. join the Transport Workers Union of America as a condition of their new employment. The Appellant initially found this constituted an unfair labor practice, arguing it discouraged membership in the employees' former union. However, the majority opinion reversed this finding and granted the employer's application, concluding that such discrimination was permissible due to a valid pre-existing closed shop agreement between Club Transportation Corp. and the Transport Workers Union. Presiding Justice Nolan dissented, contending that the closed shop agreement, made with a properly designated representative, legally justified the employment condition under Labor Law § 704, subd. 5, and the order upholding the Appellant's initial finding should have been affirmed.

Unfair Labor PracticeClosed Shop AgreementLabor UnionCondition of EmploymentDiscriminationCollective BargainingAppellate DecisionDissenting OpinionLabor LawEmployer Employee Relations
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11,237 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