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

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aerospace Co. Division of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America

This case, an action under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, involved a court-ordered tripartite arbitration between Bell Aerospace Company, Local 516, and Local 205. Following the arbitrator's decision on January 30, 1973, Local 205 moved to vacate the award, citing alleged misbehavior, exceeded authority, disregard of law, and evident partiality by the arbitrator. Local 516 cross-moved to confirm the award. The court, acknowledging its limited jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, thoroughly reviewed Local 205's claims. It found no sufficient grounds to vacate the award, rejecting all allegations against the arbitrator. Consequently, the court denied Local 205's motion to vacate and granted Local 516's motion to confirm the arbitration award.

ArbitrationLabor Management Relations ActUnion DisputeJudicial ReviewArbitration AwardMotion to VacateMotion to ConfirmFederal CourtCollective BargainingMisbehavior of Arbitrator
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 201, United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Shaker, Travis & Quinn, Inc.

This case arises from a work assignment dispute between Local 38 and Local 201 regarding the fabrication of plastic inspection boxes for Shaker, Travis & Quinn, Inc. Local 201 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Shaker from assigning work to Local 38 and to compel tripartite arbitration. Shaker moved to stay arbitration, citing a pending NLRB 10(k) proceeding, while Local 38 moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied Shaker’s stay, affirming the national policy favoring arbitration. Local 201’s injunction request was denied due to insufficient proof of irreparable harm. Local 38’s motion to dismiss was also denied, with the court asserting jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Ultimately, the court granted Local 201's request for tripartite arbitration, deeming it the most sensible and efficient method for resolving the three-sided dispute.

work assignment disputelabor union disputearbitration injunctionpreliminary injunctionsubject matter jurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRAtripartite arbitrationNational Labor Relations BoardNLRB 10(k) proceeding
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1980

Rapid Armored Truck Corp. v. Local 807 Armored Car Division Pension Fund

Petitioner Rapid Armored Truck Corp. and Local Union No. 820 (later Local 807) entered into a collective bargaining agreement requiring pension fund contributions with a broad arbitration clause. After the agreement's extensions, petitioner refused to sign a successor agreement, contending its obligation to the pension fund had terminated. The trustees of the pension fund sought arbitration regarding these contributions. Petitioner commenced a proceeding to stay arbitration, arguing no valid arbitration agreement existed and challenged an amendment naming a single arbitrator. Local 807 cross-applied to compel arbitration. Special Term held that the agreement was extended and the dispute was arbitrable, but ordered a three-member arbitration board. The Appellate Court affirmed, emphasizing the strong presumption favoring arbitrability in private labor disputes and that issues of contract interpretation and obligations arguably created by an expired agreement fall within the arbitration clause.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration DisputePension Fund ContributionsContract TerminationArbitrabilityUnion SuccessionLabor LawEmployer ObligationsGrievance ProcedureAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. CIV-81-518, CIV-81-548
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Local 435 of the Retail Store Employees Union & Heinrich Motors, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order by District Judge Elfvin addresses two arbitration awards involving Local 435 of the Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and Heinrich Motors, Inc. The unions sought to confirm the awards, while Heinrich sought to vacate or modify them. The specific issue before the court was Heinrich's removal of CIV-81-518 from New York state court to federal court. Judge Elfvin concluded that the motion to confirm the arbitrator's supplemental award was part of the original action commenced by Heinrich to vacate the initial award, and was thus untimely removed. Consequently, Local 435's motion to remand CIV-81-518 to state court was granted, and Heinrich's motion to consolidate CIV-81-518 and CIV-81-548 was denied.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActRemoval JurisdictionTimeliness of RemovalCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Court JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionMotion to RemandMotion to ConsolidateNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 323 v. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, MacHine & Furniture Workers

Plaintiffs, Local 323 and its officers, initiated a lawsuit against the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE). They alleged that the IUE unlawfully denied Local 323's right to disaffiliate, claiming the IUE amended its constitution to obstruct disaffiliation and breached its own rules in denying their application. Plaintiffs sought judicial enforcement of disaffiliation, retention of assets, an injunction, and damages. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting various defenses, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Local 323 had not exhausted its available administrative remedies within the union, a prerequisite for pursuing the claims in federal court, given the internal nature of the dispute.

Union DisaffiliationLabor LawLMRALMRDAExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInternal Union DisputeMotion to DismissBreach of ContractFederal Court JurisdictionUnion Constitution
References
14
Case No. 71 Civ 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 638

The plaintiff, EEOC, brought an Order to Show Cause alleging that Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and its Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (Local 28 JAC) were successors in interest to Local 10 and Local 10 JAC. The EEOC contended that Local 10 and Local 10 JAC had violated a 1973 federal district court order prohibiting discrimination against Black and Puerto Rican individuals. A Special Master was appointed and found that Local 28 was indeed the successor in interest to Local 10. The District Court affirmed the Special Master's finding, concluding that successor liability attached to Local 28. This decision was based on several key factors: the formal merger of Local 10 into Local 28, the substantial continuity of the business enterprise, Local 28's prior notice of Local 10's liabilities and the existing judicial order, and the overarching importance of federal policies, including upholding federal court judgments and promoting equal opportunity.

Successorship DoctrineLabor LawEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIUnion MergerJudicial Order EnforcementRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSpecial Master FindingsFederal Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Country Iron Works, Inc. v. Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 of the International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers Union Security Funds

This labor-management dispute began with Old Country Iron Works, Inc. seeking to stay arbitration initiated by Local 361, claiming its collective bargaining agreement was solely with Local 40. After the case was removed to federal court, Old Country moved for remand, while the unions cross-moved for summary judgment to compel arbitration. The District Court denied Old Country's remand motion, asserting federal jurisdiction due to the dispute's reliance on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement under the Taft-Hartley Act. However, the court also denied the unions' summary judgment motions without prejudice, citing uncertainties regarding the need for an arbitration order and the scope of the arbitration agreement concerning potential jurisdictional issues. The parties were subsequently directed to engage in settlement discussions.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationRemoval JurisdictionTaft-Hartley ActSection 301Summary JudgmentMotion to RemandFederal Common LawJurisdictional Dispute
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,746 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