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

International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Hanjin Container Lines, Ltd.

The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) petitioned the District Court to confirm and enforce arbitration awards totaling $21,000 against Hanjin Container Lines (HCL) and Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (Hanjin). These awards stemmed from violations of the “Rules on Containers,” which are part of the ILA-New York Shipping Association (NYSA) collective bargaining agreement, mandating the use of ILA longshoremen for container work. Hanjin challenged the awards, asserting that HCL was not bound by the agreement for earlier awards and that the Rules had been declared illegal by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The Court granted ILA’s petition, determining that Hanjin waived jurisdictional objections by participating in arbitration and that various stays issued by the FMC and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals kept the Rules in effect during the period the awards were issued.

Arbitration Award EnforcementLabor LawShipping ActContainer RulesCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Maritime CommissionJurisdiction WaiverPublic PolicyJudicial StaysWork Preservation Agreement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Longshoremen's Ass'n Warehouse Workers Local 1504-8 Ex Rel. Watkins v. South Atlantic & Gulf Coast International Longshoremen's Ass'n

This case addresses a dispute between International Longshoremen’s Association Warehouse Workers Local 1504-8 (the Local), primarily composed of African-American members, and the South Atlantic & Gulf Coast International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO (the District). The Local alleged racial animus and breach of the District’s duty of fair representation, citing various actions that excluded its members from employment opportunities, including the implementation of a "24-hour rule," denial of work at a fruit warehouse, reassignment of "stripping and stuffing" work, and exclusion from Galveston’s cruise terminal. The Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction. The Court denied the motion, concluding that the Local's claims for breach of the duty of fair representation were untimely, and the race discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 lacked sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination to meet the burden of showing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Furthermore, the Court determined that the other factors for granting a preliminary injunction—irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest—also weighed against the Local’s request.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor LawUnion DisputeRacial DiscriminationDuty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsIntentional DiscriminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(a)National Labor Relations Act42 U.S.C. § 1981
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. Randazzo

Plaintiffs, members of Local 1476, International Longshoremen’s Association, brought an action against the Sugar Workers Council of North America, ILA, challenging a compulsory affiliation and associated dues increase under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Initially, the court enjoined the Sugar Council from collecting dues, finding the Executive Council lacked express authority to impose such an increase. Subsequently, the Sugar Council moved to modify the injunction after its constitution was amended by a unanimous delegate vote at a special convention, requiring members to pay a monthly per capita tax. The court granted the modification, ruling that the Sugar Council is a 'labor organization' under the LMRDA and the delegate vote validly authorized the dues increase, thereby dissolving the injunction.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActUnion DuesUnion AffiliationInjunctive ReliefLabor LawInternal Union AffairsLocal UnionsIntermediate Labor OrganizationsStatutory ComplianceDues Increase Authorization
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southern S. S. Co. v. Sheppeard

The Southern Steamship Company initiated an equity action under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act to enjoin an award made by a commissioner in favor of Cisro Cummings. Cummings had sustained a thumb injury, leading to amputation, and subsequently signed a release for $260 and re-employment with the company. The commissioner, after a hearing, found that Cummings was statutorily entitled to more compensation than he received and issued an award for the balance. The court, presided over by Judge Hutcheson, determined that the settlement agreement was not properly before it in this injunctive proceeding and upheld the commissioner's award, citing the invalidity of any agreement by an employee to waive compensation rights under the Act. Consequently, the court denied the injunction.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActEquity ActionInjunctionSettlement AgreementWaiver of Compensation RightsRelease ValidityAmputation InjuryWorker's Compensation AwardJudicial ReviewFederal Statute Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lumbermen's Reciprocal Ass'n v. Kaisha

Culver, an injured employee, and his insurer initiated a lawsuit against the owner of the ship Jufuku Maru and the ship itself, seeking damages under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court confirmed that the ship and its owner could be sued as third parties, rejecting the argument that the ship should be considered a statutory employer. However, on the merits, the court determined that the injury was not proximately caused by any negligence of the ship, such as a defective winch or missing bolts for a beam. Instead, the injury resulted directly from the culpably negligent and dangerous work methods voluntarily adopted by Culver's employer and the specific negligence of the gangwayman in operating the winch. Consequently, the claim against the ship was denied, as the ship was wholly exonerated from liability for Culver's injuries.

Longshoremen's ActHarbor Workers' CompensationThird-Party LiabilityShip Owner LiabilityStevedore NegligenceProximate CauseStatutory EmployeeAssigned Cause of ActionMaritime LawPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cox v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1273

Plaintiffs, veterans Cox, Heaton, and Palmer, sought advancement in longshoremen seniority and back wages, alleging their employers (Local 1273 and thirty stevedore companies) unlawfully denied them credit for military service time towards job seniority, violating the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were merely temporary employees and thus not entitled to the Act's seniority benefits, and that the 1,200-hour qualification rule for seniority advancement served a justifiable business purpose. The court determined that the plaintiffs, as casual longshore laborers, did not occupy an 'other than temporary position' and lacked a reasonable expectation of continuous employment. Additionally, their advancement to D-1 classification was not a matter of right but depended on discretionary selection and meeting a specific work-hour requirement. Consequently, the court found the defendants' actions consistent with the Act's policy and denied the plaintiffs' request for relief.

Veterans' Reemployment RightsSeniority RightsLongshore IndustryUniversal Military Training and Service ActEmployment SeniorityTemporary Employee StatusHiring HallCollective Bargaining AgreementHouston Port OperationsDiscretionary Advancement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dockside Terminal Services v. Port Houston Marine, Inc.

Ralph Barrios, an employee of Port Houston, was injured and subsequently sued Dockside for his injuries. Dockside then filed a third-party claim for indemnity against Port Houston, alleging a breach of an implied oral contract requiring Port Houston to provide a flagman for crane operations. The trial court granted Port Houston's motion for summary judgment, citing sections 905(a) and (b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that Section 905 does not bar contract-based indemnity suits by a non-vessel third party against an employer. The court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the implied contractual provision, thus remanding the cause for trial.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActThird-Party ClaimContractual IndemnityImplied ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalEmployer LiabilityMaritime LawCrane OperationFlagman
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarabocchia v. John W. McGrath Corp.

This case addresses cross-motions for summary judgment concerning whether an injury falls under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The plaintiff previously received state workmen's compensation but was denied federal compensation by a Deputy Commissioner, who found the injury did not occur on navigable waters. The injury happened when the plaintiff fell from a skid attached to a pier. The District Court affirmed the Deputy Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review. The court distinguished this case from a precedent where the injury involved striking water. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' motions were granted.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentNavigable WatersWorkmen's CompensationScope of ReviewAdministrative LawPier AccidentMaritime LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crocco v. Local 333, United Marine Division, International Longshoremen's Ass'n

Augustine Crocco, a former President of Local 1294, International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO, sued several labor unions under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), alleging he was improperly disciplined. Crocco claimed that an unfair disciplinary hearing and a recommendation for his removal from office and disqualification from future elections led to his defeat in a subsequent election, even though no formal discipline was imposed. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no actual 'discipline' occurred under LMRDA § 101(a)(5). The court examined the definition of 'discipline' and precedent but found no evidence of bad faith prosecution by the unions. Ultimately, the federal court ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the LMRDA claims because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, and thus the state court from which the case was removed had no original jurisdiction. The LMRDA claims were dismissed, and the remaining state law claims were remanded to the Supreme Court of New York for Rensselaer County.

Labor Union LawUnion Member RightsInternal Union DisciplineSummary Judgment MotionSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal PreemptionLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActWrongful Discipline ClaimsInter-union ConflictRemand to State Court
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Globe Indemnity Co. v. Calbeck

This federal court case concerns a review of a compensation order under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act for the drowning death of Arthur B. Turner. Plaintiffs, J. S. Gissel & Company and Globe Indemnity Company, challenged the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner C. D. Calbeck, arguing a prior Texas state court judgment constituted res judicata or estoppel. The court, presided over by Judge Ingraham, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, asserting exclusive federal jurisdiction over the claim, thereby precluding the application of state court judgment defenses. It distinguished the "twilight zone" doctrine, reaffirming that certain maritime activities, like vessel repair, fall solely under federal law, as established in precedents like Flowers and Noah. Ultimately, the court also denied the defendants' summary judgment motion due to unresolved factual issues regarding timely filing, and the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against claimant Jesse Turner.

Longshoremen's ActHarbor Workers' ActExclusive JurisdictionConcurrent JurisdictionTwilight Zone DoctrineRes JudicataEstoppel by JudgmentMaritime LawWorkmen's CompensationFederal vs State Jurisdiction
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 135 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