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

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summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn.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. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2001

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 580

Union members Iran Bennett, Charles Brown, Leroy Pratt, and Angel Vasquez moved to hold Local 580 in contempt for non-compliance with a 1978 consent judgment and subsequent court orders regarding discriminatory practices and an affirmative action program. Local 580 cross-moved to dismiss the motion, citing lack of standing, insufficiency of pleading, and failure to exhaust contractual remedies. The court granted the motion to intervene for Bennett, Brown, Pratt, and Vasquez, finding they had standing under Rule 24 or Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that their claims were timely. The court dismissed Trancoso's motion to intervene without prejudice, as his claim did not allege discrimination against Local 580. Local 580's cross-motion to dismiss was denied, with the court finding the union members' allegations sufficient and the back pay order not extinguishing rights to individual relief for post-1991 discrimination.

DiscriminationContemptConsent Judgment EnforcementIntervention (Rule 24)Third-Party Beneficiary (Rule 71)Affirmative ActionApprenticeship ProgramsHiring Hall PracticesRacial Discrimination in EmploymentFederal Civil Procedure
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laflamme v. Carpenters Local 370 Pension Plan

Plaintiff Michael LaFlamme initiated a class action against the Carpenters Local #370 Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) concerning the plan's 'freezing rule' for benefit accrual after a 'break in service.' LaFlamme sought a judicial declaration that this rule contravenes ERISA's minimum accrual standards, along with a reformation of the pension plan and recalculation of benefits for all affected class members. The court, presided over by District Judge Hurd, evaluated the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted, establishing a class comprised of all plan participants, active or retired, who experienced a service break resulting in frozen benefit accrual rates. The decision also outlined procedures for providing notice to the newly certified class members, while deferring detailed adjudication of defenses like statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies to later dispositive motions.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass ActionBenefit AccrualFreezing RuleBreaks in ServiceClass CertificationRule 23(a)Rule 23(b)Federal Civil Procedure
References
49
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drywall Tapers & Pointers of Greater New York, Local 1974 of I.B.P.A.T. v. Local 530 of Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n

This case involves Local 1974 (plaintiff) suing Local 530 (defendant) for violating Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 by asserting jurisdiction over work awarded to Local 1974 through arbitration agreements. Local 1974 sought an injunction and damages. The court had previously confirmed an arbitration decision favoring Local 1974 and issued a preliminary injunction against Local 530. Subsequently, Local 1974 moved for class certification to represent its members, which Local 530 opposed. The court denied the motion for class certification, ruling that a union generally cannot serve as a class representative for its members under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, though it confirmed that a union can sue for damages on behalf of its *present* members under Section 301(b) for breaches of union contracts.

Class ActionLabor UnionJurisdiction DisputeLabor-Management Relations ActRule 23StandingDamagesInjunctive ReliefCollective BargainingUnion Contracts
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 175, United Plant & Production Workers v. Thompson

Local 175, a labor union, initiated a CPLR article 78 petition challenging the Comptroller of the City of New York's 2009-2010 prevailing wage schedules for asphalt workers. Local 175 contended that it was the predominant union for asphalt pavers and that the Comptroller should have based the prevailing wage on its collective bargaining agreement, which offered higher rates than those determined by Local 1018's agreement. The Comptroller cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that under Labor Law § 220 (6), only employers, not labor organizations, have standing to contest such determinations. The court agreed with the Comptroller, rejecting Local 175's arguments and declining to follow a prior ruling that had granted standing to a union in a similar context. The court held that the Legislature intended to limit standing to employers, thus Local 175 lacked the legal capacity to challenge the prevailing wage rate determination. Consequently, the court granted the Comptroller's cross-motion and dismissed the petition.

Prevailing wageLabor Law § 220CPLR article 78Standing doctrineFiscal officerCollective bargaining agreementPublic workAsphalt workersNew York City ComptrollerLabor union
References
5
Case No. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
Case No. 03-04-00261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2005

Local Neon Company, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Local Neon Company, Inc. initiated a tax protest lawsuit challenging the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas's assessment of sales and use tax from 1988 to 1995, arguing a lack of sufficient nexus to require tax collection and that their protest letter met statutory requirements. The district court dismissed the case due to a plea to the jurisdiction, finding Local Neon's protest letter did not 'state fully and in detail each reason for recovering the payment.' The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the tax protest suit and declaratory judgment claims for a refund, agreeing that the protest letter was insufficient. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the dismissal of Local Neon's claims seeking declaratory relief on the constitutionality of the tax code statutes and administrative rules, finding these were not redundant to tax code remedies and should be heard.

Tax LawSales and Use TaxTax Protest SuitDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityConstitutional LawDue ProcessCommerce ClauseAdministrative LawJurisdiction
References
61
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

Maggio v. Local 1199

The case addresses whether a federal court should confirm or vacate an arbitrator's decision to reinstate a nurse's aide, Clifford Ackley, and award him back pay after his discharge from Patchogue Nursing Center (PNC) for alleged patient mistreatment. The employer, Paul C. Maggio, and the New York State Health Facilities Association (NYSHFA) argued that the reinstatement violated public policy and encroached on the New York State Department of Health Commissioner's exclusive jurisdiction regarding patient abuse. The Union, Local 1199, sought confirmation. Judge Wexler, presiding in District Court, ruled that the state statutes did not grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Commissioner, thereby allowing labor arbitrators to rule on such grievances. Furthermore, the court found insufficient grounds to vacate the award on public policy, as the arbitrator determined Ackley's actions were due to carelessness rather than intentional abuse, and the Commissioner had only issued an admonishment, not a punitive fine. Consequently, the court confirmed the arbitrator's award.

Labor ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionArbitration Award ConfirmationPatient AbuseNursing Home RegulationsEmployee ReinstatementCollective Bargaining AgreementPhysical MistreatmentHealth Care LawFederal Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 11,537 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