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

Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley v. Donovan

This case involves the Chattanooga law firm Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley challenging the application of sections 203(b) and 204 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The firm engaged in labor persuader activities for Southern Silk Mills, Inc., to dissuade employees from unionizing, specifically through speeches by partners William P. Hutcheson and Ray H. Moseley. The plaintiff argued that § 203(b) did not apply due to the disclosed nature of their activities, violated First Amendment rights, and that § 204 exempted them from disclosure based on attorney-client privilege. The Secretary of Labor counterclaimed to compel compliance. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's, ruling that the LMRDA's disclosure requirements apply to the firm's persuader activities and do not violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, the court found that the § 204 attorney-client exemption is parallel to common law privilege and does not preclude disclosure of the information required by § 203(b). The plaintiff was ordered to comply with the reporting requirements.

Labor LawLMRDAAttorney-Client PrivilegeFirst AmendmentLabor PersuaderDisclosure RequirementsSummary JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeUnionizationEmployer-Employee Relations
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santo v. Laborers' International Union

This case addresses a dispute between union members and their labor organizations concerning a dues increase implemented during a trusteeship. Plaintiffs challenged the unilateral dues increase by a trustee under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the union's constitution. The court found that the trustee's action violated the LMRDA's provision requiring member participation in dues decisions, even under a trusteeship. However, the claim based on the union constitution was dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the LMRDA claim and to the defendants on the union constitution claim, leaving the issue of damages unresolved.

LMRDAUnion DuesTrusteeshipLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentExhaustion of RemediesUnion ConstitutionVoting RightsDemocratic GovernanceLabor Unions
References
23
Case No. 3-85-0031
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Allied Plant Maintenance Company of Tennessee

Plaintiff Allen sued Allied Plant Maintenance Company, the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), and Local 912 of the IUOE following his discharge in July 1984. Allen alleged a conspiracy among the defendants, leading to violations of federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), and the duty of fair representation (DFR) under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), as well as a state claim for breach of employment contract. Chief Judge Wiseman granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except the DFR claim. The Court dismissed Allen's civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) due to a lack of class-based discriminatory animus and an insufficient nexus to a federal court proceeding, and found the NLRA claims preempted by the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction. The LMRDA claim was dismissed as it did not infringe upon Allen's rights as a union member. The judge denied the defendants' motion to strike Allen's jury demand for the DFR claim but granted the motion to strike his request for punitive damages.

Summary JudgmentDuty of Fair RepresentationLabor RelationsWrongful TerminationUnion ConspiracyFederal PreemptionCivil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985)Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActNational Labor Relations ActBreach of Contract
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shultz v. Radio Officers' Union of the United Telegraph Workers

The Secretary of Labor filed an action against the Radio Officers’ Union (ROU) under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The Secretary sought to nullify the 1969 election for President and National Committeeman—Oakland due to two alleged incidents of misconduct. The court found that ROU President Joseph Glynn improperly interfered with Lester Parnell’s candidacy for National Committeeman—Oakland by coercing him to withdraw, violating 29 U.S.C. § 481(e). Additionally, the court found that ROU discriminated against presidential candidate R. C. Smith by failing to provide him with the union's ship list for campaign mailings, a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 481(c). Both violations were deemed to have potentially affected the election outcome. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the Secretary of Labor.

Labor Union ElectionElection MisconductLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Candidate EligibilityUnion DiscriminationFreedom of Speech (within union elections)Pension JeopardyCampaign LiteratureMembership List AccessInternal Union Remedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reich v. Federation of Catholic Teachers, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor initiated an action to set aside the March 1993 election of the Federation of Catholic Teachers' officers and council members, alleging violations of Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The Secretary contended the election was unfair due to the official ballot promoting incumbents as "The Action Team" while listing challengers simply as "The Opposition," and improper involvement of the incumbent president, Margaret Menard, in the election process. The court found the ballot unfair, constituting a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 481(c), ruling that the incumbent slate designation "The Action Team" without a corresponding name for the opposition slate was a violation, regardless of intent. Given the close election margins, the court determined that this violation may have affected the outcome and ordered a new election under the Secretary's supervision. While the court dismissed the claim of improper involvement by Menard, it noted the election's excessive informality and casual attitude towards legal requirements, instructing future elections to ensure committee independence and adherence to Department of Labor guidelines.

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLMRDA Title IVUnion ElectionElection ViolationUnfair BallotIncumbent SlateOpposition SlateExhaustion of RemediesPrima Facie CaseBurden of Proof
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regan v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Plaintiffs Rishe and Regan sued District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and eight individual representatives, alleging a breach of a collective bargaining agreement for condoning their wrongful discharge and termination of employment without proper cause. The original complaints, based on diversity of citizenship, were dismissed. Amended complaints asserted jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 102 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The court denied District 50's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding a valid cause of action under Section 301. However, the motion of the individual Representatives to dismiss was granted, as Section 301(b) precludes enforcing judgments against a labor organization's members individually.

Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful DischargeUnion Duty to EnforceJurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor Organization LiabilityIndividual Representative LiabilityBreach of Contract
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1992

Kirrane v. Transport Workers Union of America

Plaintiff William Kirrane, a former staff representative and International vice-president of the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), brought claims against TWU and Local 101. He sought reinstatement to his former union positions and a declaration of good standing membership in Local 101 to run for president, alleging violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act. The court heard cross-motions for summary judgment from both parties. The judge granted the defendants' motions, dismissing Kirrane's claims for reinstatement against TWU, citing legal precedents regarding union officers' dismissal and free speech rights. The court also dismissed Kirrane's claim against Local 101, determining that the issue of his membership eligibility was more appropriately handled in a separate, ongoing action filed by the Secretary of Labor where Kirrane had already intervened.

Union DisputeLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActSummary JudgmentUnion MembershipOfficer DismissalUnion ElectionsFree SpeechInternal Union PoliticsJudicial Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madden v. International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

Kenneth Madden, a union officer, was removed from his position by the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers and its officers, William Bernard and James Grogan, following a dispute over dues and an alleged hearing. Madden filed suit alleging violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), along with claims of libel and infliction of emotional distress. The individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under the LMRA. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding sufficient purposeful activity by the defendants in New York to establish jurisdiction. However, the motion to dismiss the LMRA claims for monetary damages against the individual officers was granted, consistent with Supreme Court precedent shielding individual union officers from monetary liability under LMRA Section 301. The motion to dismiss the complaint against Grogan for failure to allege a claim was denied.

LMRDALMRALabor UnionPersonal JurisdictionMotion to DismissIndividual LiabilityUnion OfficersFiduciary Shield DoctrineLabor DisputesNew York Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gordon v. Winpisinger

Plaintiffs, members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), including Gordon, Healy, Boyes, and Warfield, were disciplined by the union for alleged activities endangering its welfare after publishing a newsletter. After exhausting internal union appeals, they sued IAM and its International President, William Winpisinger, alleging violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing claims were time-barred and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, while plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court denied defendants' motion regarding the statute of limitations and subject matter jurisdiction, finding plaintiffs had standing. However, the court dismissed LMRA claims seeking money damages against Winpisinger individually but allowed equitable relief claims to stand. Plaintiffs' cross-motions for summary judgment were also denied, concluding that the issue of whether their actions constituted a chargeable offense required a full presentation of facts.

Labor LawUnion DisciplineLMRDALMRAStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionFreedom of SpeechInternal Union RemediesSummary JudgmentIndividual Liability
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 20,912 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