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

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The plaintiff, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, filed a complaint against various defendants, including labor unions, union officials, installers, and a manufacturer of electrical equipment, alleging a conspiracy to deprive its members of collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The court, presided over by District Judge Mandelbaum, determined that the National Labor Relations Board holds exclusive jurisdiction over such controversies. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had not exhausted its administrative remedies before the Board. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, directing the plaintiff to pursue relief through appropriate administrative proceedings.

Labor LawJurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesConspiracyBoycottMotion to Dismiss
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1964

United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Star Expansion Industries, Inc.

This case concerns a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) against Star Expansion Industries, Inc. and Local #1968, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). UE, newly certified as the bargaining agent, sought to displace IBEW in an ongoing arbitration concerning the discharge of employee Albert E. Dinges, which IBEW had commenced under its prior collective bargaining agreement. The court denied the injunction, affirming the arbitrator's decision that IBEW, as the union that initiated the grievance under its contract, retained the right to conclude the arbitration despite its decertification and contract expiration. The ruling emphasized the contractual nature of arbitration and the federal policy promoting industrial peace by allowing established proceedings to continue.

Collective BargainingUnion RepresentationArbitrationInjunctive ReliefDecertificationGrievanceLabor DisputeContractual ObligationFederal PolicyIndustrial Peace
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between American Machine & Foundry Co. & Fay

The case involves three motions: the employer, American Machine & Foundry Company, seeks to stay arbitration initiated by Amalgamated Machine, Instrument & Metal Local 475 (union local); the union local seeks to compel arbitration; and William S. Abernathy, claiming to be chairman of the shop committee, seeks to intervene in support of the employer. The employer is caught between two factions of the union, each claiming authority over the grievance committee. The court grants Abernathy's motion to intervene, finding it a proper case under the Civil Practice Act. The court determines that the central issue of which committee has the authority to administer the collective bargaining agreement's grievance provisions is a triable issue of fact that cannot be decided on affidavits. Therefore, a jury trial is ordered for an early date in January 1949 to determine this authority, and all arbitration proceedings are stayed until then.

arbitration disputelabor lawcollective bargaininggrievance procedureunion representationintra-union conflictcourt interventionstay proceedingsjury trialprocedural law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. General Electric Co.

The Union, consisting of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and five of its locals, sued General Electric Company under the Taft-Hartley Act to compel arbitration of various grievances. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The central issues revolve around whether the 1956-1960 collective bargaining agreement provides for compulsory arbitration and if the grievances fall within its scope. The court found the contract language ambiguous, requiring extrinsic evidence for proper interpretation. Consequently, the court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing the presence of genuine issues of material fact that warrant a full trial.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationTaft-Hartley ActSummary JudgmentLabor LawContract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceAmbiguityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureGrievance Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical & Machine Workers v. General Electric Co.

This case involves a dispute between the International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers (Union) and General Electric Company (Company), and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, concerning a 1966 Pension and Insurance Agreement and its incorporated Insurance Plan. The Union alleged the Company wrongfully rejected sickness and accident claims filed during a strike and, alternatively, sought reimbursement for employee contributions for coverage not provided during the strike. The central issue was the interpretation of clauses governing sickness and accident benefits during voluntary strike absences. The Court found that the Company properly rejected claims for benefits arising more than 31 days into the strike, dismissing the Union's first claim. However, the Court ruled that employees are entitled to reimbursement for the portion of their contributions related to sickness and accident coverage not afforded during the strike, and ordered an assessment of damages if parties cannot agree on the amount.

labour lawcollective bargaining agreementinsurance plansickness and accident benefitsstrikeemployee contributionscontract interpretationunjust enrichmentdamagesfederal court
References
6
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

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00333 [168 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Vazquez v. Skuffy Auto Body Shop

Luis Vazquez, an auto body technician, sustained a work-related back injury in 2013 and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended in November 2015, and upon his application for reinstatement, the carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to undisclosed work for a landscaping business. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no violation, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, determining that Vazquez knowingly made material misrepresentations about his return to work and was subject to mandatory disqualification of benefits from April 25, 2016, to December 28, 2016, and future indemnity benefits after December 29, 2016. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Vazquez violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making false representations and omissions regarding his work activity to obtain benefits. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's imposition of a penalty disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits, citing a pattern of deceit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent MisrepresentationDisqualification of BenefitsUndisclosed Work ActivityCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardIndemnity BenefitsLandscaping Business
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nann v. Raimist

This case concerns a heated dispute between two rival labor unions, the Amalgamated Food Workers (plaintiff) and the Bakery and Confectionery Workers’ International Union of America (defendant), competing for control in the baking trade. The International union initiated a campaign to eliminate the Amalgamated, employing tactics such as violent picketing, physical assaults on workers, and disseminating false statements about the Amalgamated being a "fake" union and shops allied with it being "scab" shops. Following an injunction granted by the Special Term and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals found that while violence and false statements justified certain restraints, the injunction was overly broad. The Court modified the judgment, affirming the prohibition against unlawful acts, but limited the scope to specific wrongful conduct and allowed for peaceable persuasion and criticism, emphasizing that equity does not intervene in mere logomachies unless physical disorder or property damage is threatened. The decision underscored the delicate balance between protecting property interests and upholding fundamental rights of free speech and association in labor disputes.

Labor UnionsIndustrial DisputeInjunction ScopePicketing LegalityUnfair Labor PracticesFreedom of SpeechCollective BargainingAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionTortious Interference
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 22,678 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