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 Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Allegis Corp.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), representing employees of Allegis Corporation and United Air Lines, Inc., initiated an action to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance. The Union claimed that United's assets were encumbered without consideration to finance a $2.8 billion cash distribution to Allegis shareholders, potentially rendering United insolvent. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of federal preemption by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), laches, mootness, and failure to join necessary parties. Presided over by Herman Cahn, J., the court denied all branches of the defendants' motion. The court found that the claims were not preempted by the RLA, were within the Statute of Limitations, were not moot, and that shareholders were not necessary parties to the action.

fraudulent conveyanceRLA preemptionsubject matter jurisdictionlachesmootnessnecessary partiescollective bargaining agreementDebtor and Creditor LawUniform Fraudulent Conveyance Actcorporate restructuring
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Compagnie Nationale Air France

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought a preliminary injunction against Air France to prevent the unilateral cancellation of their collective bargaining agreement from January 3, 1977, and to compel Air France to continue recognizing IAM as the representative for cargo agents. Air France terminated the agreement citing Article XVII(q), which was triggered by a National Mediation Board (NMB) decision concerning United Air Lines freight agents, interpreting it as permitting separate bargaining units for cargo agents. IAM contended that Air France's actions violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and that Article XVII(q) itself was illegal and an attempt to bypass RLA procedures. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction, categorizing the dispute as both a 'minor dispute' concerning contract interpretation, falling under the National Railroad Adjustment Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and a 'major dispute' regarding employee representation, which is under the primary jurisdiction of the NMB. Since administrative remedies had not been exhausted, the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the case was dismissed.

Labor LawRailway Labor ActCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionJurisdictionMinor DisputeMajor DisputeNational Mediation BoardNational Railroad Adjustment BoardUnion Representation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers

Japan Air Lines Company, Ltd. (JAL) initiated this action against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM), its collective bargaining representative, seeking to enjoin a potential strike. JAL contended that the IAM's insistence on changes to the 'Scope' clause, which aimed to require JAL to employ its own personnel for work historically subcontracted, constituted a non-bargainable demand and violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) duty to bargain in good faith. The court determined that the 'Scope' proposal was not a mandatory subject of bargaining as it pertained to fundamental management decisions and only indirectly impacted employee job security. Despite JAL's refusal to bargain on this specific issue, the court found that the IAM's overall conduct did not demonstrate a lack of sincere effort to reach an agreement on other issues. Consequently, JAL's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the previously issued temporary restraining order was dissolved.

Collective BargainingScope ClauseSubcontractingInjunctionRailway Labor ActMandatory BargainingManagerial PrerogativeJob SecurityUnion DisputeStrike Action
References
19
Case No. CV99-4341 (BMC) (RML)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2007

Ramey v. District 141, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers

This case addresses several motions related to damages following a prior finding that defendant breached its duty by improperly stripping plaintiffs' seniority rights. The court examined the foreseeability of the September 11th attacks causing layoffs in the airline industry, concluding it was not foreseeable. However, the financial decline and subsequent bankruptcy of U.S. Airways were deemed potentially foreseeable causes of injury. The decision clarifies that the burden of proof for showing the September 11th attack as a superseding cause lies with the defendant. Additionally, claims for damages from voluntary furloughs or early retirement are to be analyzed under a mitigation of damages framework, with the defendant bearing the burden to prove plaintiffs acted unreasonably. Finally, the court ruled that the damages request is incidental to the primary request for injunctive relief, therefore, the remaining issues will be tried to the Court, not a jury.

ForeseeabilityProximate CauseSeptember 11th AttacksAirline IndustryLayoffsSeniority RightsBankruptcyDamages ClaimsMitigation of DamagesConstructive Discharge
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1996

Voiclis v. International Ass'n of Machinist & Aerospace Workers

The defendant, International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, Suffolk Lodge No. 1470, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County. This order had granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a jury verdict in the defendant's favor and directed a new trial. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the plaintiffs’ motion, and reinstated the original jury verdict. The decision emphasized that a jury verdict should not be set aside unless no fair interpretation of the evidence could support it, highlighting the deference accorded to the jury's fact-finding role and credibility determinations. The court concluded that a fair basis existed for the verdict in the appellant's favor, thus the verdict should not have been disturbed.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictAppealOrder ReversalAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCPLR 4404New Trial DenialDamages ClaimJudicial Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1984

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Alitalia Airlines

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) brought an action against Alitalia Airlines to enforce its duty to bargain under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), following its certification by the National Mediation Board (NMB) in 1952. Alitalia refused to bargain, arguing that the NMB had exceeded its authority by reaffirming IAM's certification without re-polling employees, especially given historical rejections in consent elections. The court found that the NMB acted within its broad discretion and statutory limits, reaffirming IAM's valid certification which had never been properly disturbed. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction compelling Alitalia to bargain with IAM for its Fleet Service and Passenger Service employees. However, the court denied IAM's request for a preliminary injunction to restore employees laid off, ruling that Alitalia's merit-based layoff policy did not violate the status quo.

Railway Labor ActNational Mediation BoardUnion CertificationDuty to BargainEquitable ReliefPreliminary InjunctionStatus Quo InjunctionLabor LawCollective BargainingJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. 87 Civ. 3958
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Eastern Airlines

The plaintiff, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), sought an injunction against Eastern Airlines under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) for alleged violations of their collective bargaining agreement, specifically concerning the duties of chief shop steward Michael O'Connell. The court had previously dismissed a similar action due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, deeming it a 'minor' dispute. Although an appeal was pending, IAM filed a new motion for injunctive relief based on new facts, alleging Eastern restricted union-related work and demanded O'Connell perform 'productive work.' The court reaffirmed its classification of the dispute as 'minor,' granting exclusive jurisdiction to adjustment boards. However, to prevent irreparable harm from unprocessed grievances, the court issued a final, temporary injunction, conditioned on either party invoking the adjustment board's jurisdiction, preventing Eastern from requiring O'Connell to perform productive work when his union duties necessitate his full-time attention.

Railway Labor ActMinor DisputeMajor DisputeInjunctive ReliefCollective Bargaining AgreementShop StewardUnion DutiesIrreparable HarmAdjustment Board JurisdictionStatus Quo
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. General Electric Co.

The union, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO) and Auburn Electronics Local 967, filed a petition to compel arbitration against General Electric Company. The dispute arose from the company's notification to employees not to report for work on July 3, 1967, which the union claimed violated the collective bargaining agreement regarding working hours and temporary layoffs. The company argued its action was a 'shutdown' and that Arbitration Act remedies were unavailable. The court concluded the dispute was subject to arbitration and the remedies applicable, granting the union's petition to compel arbitration.

Labor Management Relations ActUnited States Arbitration ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilityCompel ArbitrationTemporary LayoffWorking HoursShutdown DisputeUnion GrievanceJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Varig Brazilian Airlines, Inc.

This document is an order from District Judge Glasser. Previously, on June 21, 1994, the court granted summary judgment to Varig Brazilian Airlines, Inc., dismissing claims brought by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and District Lodge 142. The parties have since filed a joint motion to vacate that prior judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court has granted this joint motion.

Joint MotionVacate JudgmentSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 60(b)Labor DisputeAirlinesUnionDistrict Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 1989

Long Island Rail Road v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers

This case addresses motions for preliminary injunctions filed by several railroad companies (Metro-North, LIRR, NJT, Amtrak) against various labor unions. The plaintiffs sought to prevent defendants from engaging in sympathy strikes or honoring picket lines established by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), which was on strike against Eastern Air Lines. The court ruled that such concerted actions by the defendant unions would violate the Railway Labor Act's (RLA) objective of preventing interruptions to commerce and the duty to maintain agreements. Consequently, the court issued a temporary injunction against the defendant unions' sympathetic labor activities, concluding that the potential harm to the plaintiffs and the public significantly outweighed the harm to the defendants.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeSympathy StrikePreliminary InjunctionSecondary PicketingUnion SolidarityCollective Bargaining AgreementsStatus QuoInterruption of CommerceRailroad Industry
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 115 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