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

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. ADJ206397
Regular
Mar 04, 2016

WANDA HIGHSMITH vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order corrects a clerical error in the date of service for a previous decision. The original decision mistakenly stated the service date as March 3, 2016, when it should have been March 4, 2016. The Board is authorized to correct such errors without further proceedings. The corrected date of service is now March 4, 2016.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errordate of serviceOpinion and OrderPetition for Reconsiderationcorrecting errorSupplemental Proceedingsamended date
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrison Baking Co. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers, Local No. 3

Harrison Baking Company initially filed suit to vacate an arbitrator's award that mandated the reinstatement of employee Douglas Brown. The Court subsequently affirmed the arbitrator's decision on March 1, 1991, which inherently ordered Brown's reinstatement. Following Harrison's perceived non-compliance, Bakery and Confectionery Workers, Local No. 3, AFL-CIO (Local 3) moved to hold Harrison in contempt, while Harrison simultaneously sought a stay pending appeal. The Court denied Harrison's request for a stay, but also chose not to find Harrison in contempt, acknowledging the plausible, albeit erroneous, belief that an automatic stay applied. Ultimately, the Court granted Local 3's motions for Douglas Brown's back pay for the period of March 5-15, 1991, and awarded Local 3 attorneys' fees incurred in compelling Harrison's compliance.

ContemptArbitration AwardReinstatementBack PayAttorneys' FeesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 62(a)Rule 65(d)Rule 70Norris-LaGuardia Act
References
19
Case No. ADJ3023725 (STK 0186210), ADJ6853419
Regular
Mar 04, 2016

IGNACIO ROA vs. ROHRER BROTHERS/ GENERAL PRODUCE, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK, XL SPECIALTY/ BROADSPIRE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a clerical error in the date of service for a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board's Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration mistakenly listed the service date as March 3, 2016. The Appeals Board issued an order to correct this error, amending the service date to March 4, 2016. This correction was made without granting reconsideration, as such clerical errors can be rectified at any time.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDClerical ErrorDate of ServiceOpinion and OrderReconsiderationAmended DateSupplemental ProceedingsLiquidated Insurance CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSedgwick
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Case No. 535640
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Digbasanis v. Pelham Bay Donuts Inc.

Claimant, Anthony Digbasanis, sustained work-related injuries in May 2016 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability but found unattached to the labor market. After reattaching and receiving benefits, the employer and carrier requested further action when claimant stopped working in March 2020, citing COVID-19 and back pain. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a prior ruling, determining claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market and rescinded benefits from March 2020. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) did not apply to relieve claimant of demonstrating ongoing labor market attachment, and finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion of voluntary withdrawal.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketLabor Market AttachmentWage-Earning CapacityStatutory InterpretationCOVID-19 ImpactMedical Evidence SufficiencyAppellate ReviewReduced Earnings Benefits
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07834 [166 AD3d 468]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Charter Communications, Inc. v. Local Union No. 3

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's orders. The Supreme Court had denied Charter Communications, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against Local Union No. 3's picketing campaign and its motion to compel expedited discovery. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division found that the lower court properly declined to make factual findings required for injunctive relief under Labor Law § 807 and correctly dismissed common-law tort claims due to a failure to plead that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions.

Preliminary InjunctionPermanent InjunctionLabor DisputePicketingTrespassingCommon-Law TortUnion LiabilityExpedited DiscoveryAppellate ReviewDismissal of Complaint
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Local Union No. 3 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The court addresses demurrers to three indictments against Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for alleged violations of the Sherman Act. The indictments claim the union conspired to prevent the installation of out-of-state electrical equipment in New York City, thereby diverting work to local manufacturers and increasing costs. Defendants argued that the Sherman Act does not apply to labor unions and that their actions constituted a 'labor dispute' immune from antitrust laws. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the alleged conspiracy's effect on market prices and free competition fell within the scope of the Sherman Act, and that the conduct did not constitute a legitimate 'labor dispute.' Consequently, the court overruled the demurrers.

Sherman ActLabor UnionsAntitrust LawInterstate CommerceRestraint of TradeDemurrersIndictmentsElectrical IndustrySecondary BoycottPrice Fixing
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Electrical Contractors' Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This decision addresses an application filed by Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a defendant in the original action. The union sought to quash the summons and service of other legal papers, asserting misnomer and improper service. The court noted that under Section 13 of the General Associations Law, actions against unincorporated associations must be brought against the president or treasurer, and service must be made upon these officers. Despite the plaintiff naming the union's president and treasurer in its papers, service on the local union was made on its general counsel and its financial secretary individually, not its president or treasurer. The court found this service insufficient to establish jurisdiction over the local union and, consequently, granted the motion to quash the service.

JurisdictionService of ProcessUnincorporated AssociationMisnomerGeneral Associations LawCivil Practice ActMotion to QuashLabour UnionStatutory InterpretationProcedural Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,336 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