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

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hygrade Operators, Inc. v. Local 333, United Marine Division, I.L.A.

The plaintiffs, Hygrade Operators, Inc., Bush-ey Towing Co., Inc., and Tanker Ira S. Bushey, Inc. (collectively operating as Spentonbush/Red Star Companies), sought summary judgment to vacate an arbitral award. The defendant, Local 333, United Marine Division, I.L.A., AFL-CIO, cross-moved to affirm the award. The original arbitral award found Spentonbush in violation of a no-lockout provision within a Collective Bargaining Agreement and awarded the Union $50,000 in damages. The court examined whether the arbitrator's finding of a lockout was colorably justified and whether the monetary award had sufficient evidentiary basis. The court ultimately determined that the arbitrator modified the plain language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement regarding 'business reasons' for layoffs and that the $50,000 damage award to the Union was entirely unsupported by evidence. As a result, the court vacated the arbitral award.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementLockoutSummary JudgmentArbitral AwardVacate AwardDamagesContract InterpretationFederal Court Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kosoff

Justice Shientag dissents, arguing that the union's challenge to the bona fides of the employer's business dissolution and claim of lockout raise arbitrable issues under the broad arbitration clause of their collective agreement. The majority, including Peck, P. J., Glennon and Dore, JJ., concurred with Callahan, J., resulting in the reversal of the order, with costs awarded to the appellant and the motion granted.

arbitrationcollective agreementlabor disputebusiness dissolutionlockoutdissenting opinionappellate courtmotion granted
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keane

The case concerns an appeal regarding unemployment benefits for workers laid off by their employer during peaceful union contract negotiations. The employer, apprehending a potential strike, laid off workers, but the union negotiations proceeded without incident and ultimately resulted in a new contract. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that no strike, lockout, or industrial controversy occurred, thus entitling the claimants to benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that peaceful collective bargaining is not an 'industrial controversy' under Labor Law § 592(1), and therefore the employees' unemployment was not disqualifying.

Unemployment BenefitsIndustrial ControversyLabor DisputeStrikeLockoutContract NegotiationsUnionLayoffsLabor LawAppellate Decision
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01696 [159 AD3d 1215]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2018

Matter of Parron (Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Louis B. Parron, a central office technician for Verizon, was denied unemployment insurance benefits after refusing to report to an alternate work location during a union strike. Despite his union initiating a strike, the employer provided consolidated work sites and travel allowances, which Parron refused, insisting on reporting to his closed original location. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the denial of benefits, finding that Parron's benefits were properly suspended under Labor Law § 592 (1) as he ceased working due to a strike and not a lockout by the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the suspension of benefits.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsStrikeIndustrial ControversyAlternate Work SiteRefusal to WorkLabor Law § 592(1)Denial of BenefitsAppellate Division Third DepartmentTelecommunications Company
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Acme Backing Corp. & District 65, Distributive, Processing & Office Workers of America

This Per Curiam decision addresses a demand for arbitration that arose after a petitioner closed its Brooklyn plant and moved manufacturing to two factories in Missouri and Connecticut, controlled by separate corporations. The dispute involved conflicting interpretations of various articles within the collective bargaining agreement, specifically concerning the bargaining unit, management's rights, prohibitions against strikes, lockouts, or subcontracting when employees were not working full-time, and the responsibilities of 'successors in interest.' The court affirmed the lower court's order denying the motion to stay arbitration, holding that controversies involving the interpretation or application of the agreement's provisions, or any breach thereof, are exclusively within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, not the courts.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPlant ClosingRelocation of ManufacturingManagement RightsUnion RightsSuccessors in InterestContract InterpretationStay of ArbitrationJurisdiction of Arbitrator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1999

Siby v. A&Z Car Wash Sales

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to the defendant-respondent in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of a car wash, sustained injuries when his sleeve and hand were caught in a conveyor chain while attempting to correct an alignment issue. The court found no evidence that the defendant's installed wiring and electrical system caused the accident. The plaintiff admitted not deactivating the conveyor system despite accessible on/off switches and a lockout key. Expert testimony regarding insufficient shutdown time and the need for automatic stops was deemed irrelevant or conclusory, as the plaintiff had the means to fully deactivate the system. No industry or regulatory standards were provided to support claims of inadequate warning time.

Personal InjuryCar Wash AccidentSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemElectrical SystemWorkplace SafetyNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyOn/Off Switch
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilner v. Bless

This case concerns a labor dispute where the defendant's local distributed false and misleading information regarding the nature of their disagreement with the plaintiff. Specifically, the information misrepresented that the plaintiff refused to renew a contract to employ only members of the defendant’s local and had made an agreement with another labor organization. The court found that the purpose of disseminating this false information was to injure the plaintiff’s business and coerce him into employing only members of the defendant’s local. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted an injunction preventing the defendant from falsely proclaiming a lockout of union labor. The decision emphasized that equity can provide relief and enjoin wrongful, continuous acts causing damage, even if related to publication, where proof of damage might be difficult. The judgment affirming the injunction was upheld.

Labor DisputeInjunctionFalse InformationMisleading InformationBusiness InjuryCoercionUnion ContractEquity ReliefLibelLockout
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dubinsky v. Blue Dale Dress Co.

In a 1936 labor dispute, the Plaintiffs' International and Joint Board, representing five local unions, sued Blue Dale Dress Company, Inc., Blue Fox Dress Company, Inc., and individuals Fishman and Goldstein. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants violated a collective bargaining agreement by locking out workers and moving their factory from New York City to Archbald, Pennsylvania, to operate a non-union shop. The court found a lockout occurred and that the relocation was a deliberate attempt to avoid contractual obligations. The defendants' claims of union violations were largely dismissed. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to comply with the collective agreement, return their operations to New York, re-employ the locked-out union members, and account for compensatory damages.

Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeLockoutFactory RelocationUnion RightsEmployer ObligationsContract ViolationEquitable ReliefInjunctionCompensatory Damages
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1971

In re the Claim of Farina

This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which determined claimants were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Claimants lost their employment during a 1970 strike by the United Auto Workers against General Motors Corporation. The Appeal Board found that claimants' specific plants were not on strike and were separate 'establishments' within the statutory definition, thus their lack of employment was not a result of a strike, lockout, or industrial controversy *in their establishment* (Labor Law, § 592, subd. 1). The appellant (General Motors Corporation) contended that claimants' lack of employment was due to a strategic management decision and challenged an alleged illegal assignment of benefits. The court affirmed the Appeal Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, citing controlling authority, and rejecting the claim of illegal benefit assignment.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsStrike ImpactIndustrial ControversyEstablishment DefinitionLabor Law ApplicationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationBenefit AssignmentGeneral Motors Strike
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 15 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