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. 3-85-0031
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Allied Plant Maintenance Company of Tennessee

Plaintiff Allen sued Allied Plant Maintenance Company, the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), and Local 912 of the IUOE following his discharge in July 1984. Allen alleged a conspiracy among the defendants, leading to violations of federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), and the duty of fair representation (DFR) under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), as well as a state claim for breach of employment contract. Chief Judge Wiseman granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except the DFR claim. The Court dismissed Allen's civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) due to a lack of class-based discriminatory animus and an insufficient nexus to a federal court proceeding, and found the NLRA claims preempted by the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction. The LMRDA claim was dismissed as it did not infringe upon Allen's rights as a union member. The judge denied the defendants' motion to strike Allen's jury demand for the DFR claim but granted the motion to strike his request for punitive damages.

Summary JudgmentDuty of Fair RepresentationLabor RelationsWrongful TerminationUnion ConspiracyFederal PreemptionCivil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985)Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActNational Labor Relations ActBreach of Contract
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1961

Texas Employment Commission v. Hansen

This is a companion case to Texas Employment Commission v. Huey, addressing whether individuals without work or compensation during a plant shutdown, where employees with seniority receive vacation benefits, are disqualified from unemployment compensation due to a union contract. The trial court initially disqualified the claimants, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed this decision, ruling in favor of the claimants. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, holding that the union contract did not constitute voluntary unemployment for those without seniority and that the claimants did not leave their work 'voluntarily without good cause connected with their work'. The case highlights the distinction between plants with and without union contracts concerning unemployment benefits during shutdowns.

Unemployment CompensationUnion ContractPlant ShutdownVacation PaySeniorityVoluntary UnemploymentLabor LawAppeals Court DecisionSupreme CourtEmployment Benefits
References
4
Case No. 342 S.W. 2d 555
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1961

Texas Employment Commission v. Amlin

This case addresses whether employees of Big Smith Manufacturing Company were eligible for unemployment benefits after a two-week plant shutdown, during which work was unavailable and some employees received no vacation pay based on seniority. The union agreement dictated vacation terms, and while employees were ready and willing to work, the plant was closed. The Texas Employment Commission initially denied benefits, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court affirmed that the claimants did not voluntarily leave their employment without good cause, consistent with previous companion cases, thereby entitling them to unemployment compensation. The decision clarified the interpretation of the 'voluntarily without good cause' disqualification under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act regarding union-negotiated shutdowns.

Unemployment BenefitsVacation PayPlant ShutdownUnion AgreementSeniorityDisqualification CriteriaVoluntary LeavingGood CauseTexas Unemployment Compensation ActCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hygiene Industries v. Plastic, Metal, Novelty & Allied Workers' Union Local 132-98

Hygiene Industries sought to prevent Plastic, Metal, Novelty and Allied Workers’ Union, Local 132-98, I.L.G.W.U. from arbitrating a grievance concerning the proposed closure of two plants in Brooklyn, New York. Hygiene argued the dispute was not arbitrable because the collective bargaining and settlement agreements might expire before the plant closings. The Union contended that the settlement agreement’s duration was tied to Hygiene’s operations in Sardis, Mississippi, and that the broad arbitration clauses covered the dispute. The court emphasized the strong federal policy favoring arbitration in labor disputes. Ultimately, the motion to enjoin arbitration was denied, as the court found the expiration date of the Settlement Agreement ambiguous and a matter for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective BargainingPlant ClosureInjunctionGrievance ProcedureContract DurationFederal PreemptionJudicial DeferenceArbitrability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amlin v. Texas Employment Commission

Hazel Amlin and other employees of Big Smith Manufacturing Company were denied unemployment compensation by the Texas Employment Commission during a plant shutdown for employee vacations. The appellants were ineligible for vacation pay and had no available work during this period, despite a collective bargaining agreement mandating the shutdown. The District Court affirmed the Commission's decision. However, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the appellants did not voluntarily leave their work without good cause and were therefore eligible for unemployment compensation under the applicable statutes.

Unemployment CompensationPlant ShutdownVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementEligibility for BenefitsVoluntary LeavingTexas LawLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1961

Texas Employment Commission v. Huey

Clara Huey and other plaintiffs sought unemployment benefits after being laid off during a plant shutdown by Nardis Sportswear, Inc. The Texas Employment Commission denied benefits, arguing the union contract effectively made their unemployment a voluntary 'vacation period' without pay. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' reversal of the trial court, ruling that the plaintiffs were not disqualified from receiving benefits. The court found the shutdown was primarily for the employer's benefit, not a union-demanded vacation, and thus unemployment was involuntary. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not 'leave their employment voluntarily without good cause connected with their work' as per the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act.

Unemployment CompensationPlant ShutdownUnion ContractVacation PayInvoluntary UnemploymentStatutory ConstructionTexas LawCollective BargainingEligibility for BenefitsEmployer Discretion
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782 v. Texas Employment Commission

This case concerns an appeal by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782, AFI-CIO, and 99 individuals challenging a Texas Employment Commission (TEC) decision that denied unemployment compensation benefits. The dispute arose from a General Electric Company plant shutdown in 1957. The appellate court addressed jurisdictional issues related to the aggregate claims amount and venue for non-resident claimants. It affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the union as a party plaintiff, but reversed decisions regarding claimants deemed voluntarily unemployed or not totally unemployed who did not receive immediate vacation pay. The court affirmed the denial of benefits for 11 claimants who received vacation pay prior to the shutdown.

Unemployment CompensationJurisdictionVenueClass Action SuitVoluntary UnemploymentTotal UnemploymentVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementStatutory InterpretationJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huey v. Texas Employment Commission

Clara Huey and twenty-six other employees of Nardis Sportswear appealed a decision by the Texas Employment Commission and a District Court, which denied their unemployment compensation claims. The employees were laid off without pay during a two-week plant shutdown in 1956, while Nardis Sportswear cited a collective bargaining agreement mandating a vacation shutdown. The lower tribunals held that the employees voluntarily left their work without good cause. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that employees not eligible for paid vacations were effectively laid off, not on a voluntary vacation, and therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. The court emphasized a liberal construction of the Texas Unemployment Law, finding that the collective bargaining agreement did not constitute a waiver of rights for those ineligible for paid leave.

Unemployment CompensationPlant ShutdownVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawVoluntary LeavingGood Cause for Leaving WorkStatutory InterpretationRemedial LawLiberal Construction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1961

Texas Employment Commission & General Electric Co. v. International Union of Electric Radio & Machine Workers, Local Union no. 782

This case, heard by the Supreme Court of Texas, addresses the eligibility of eighty-eight General Electric Company employees for unemployment compensation benefits during a 1957 plant shutdown. The Texas Employment Commission and General Electric Company appealed a Court of Civil Appeals decision that had granted benefits. The Supreme Court first upheld the district court's jurisdiction based on the aggregation of claims under Article 1906a, V.A.C.S., but affirmed the dismissal of twelve respondents due to non-compliance with residency requirements for judicial review. On the merits, the Court analyzed the collective bargaining agreement and the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act, determining that vacation pay, even if received after the shutdown, constituted 'wages' for the vacation period. Consequently, the employees were not deemed 'totally unemployed' and were not entitled to benefits. The Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, affirming the district court's original decision to deny the claims.

Unemployment CompensationWorkers' RightsCollective BargainingPlant ShutdownVacation PayStatutory InterpretationJudicial JurisdictionResidency RequirementsTexas LawSupreme Court Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Duracell International Inc.

This breach of contract case involves the sale of the Mallory Components Group by Duracell International Inc. to Emhart Industries, Inc. Several transferred facilities were contaminated with toxic substances (PCBs and TCE), leading to two consolidated lawsuits: Emhart v. Duracell and Dart, and Duracell v. Emhart. The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases. The Court ruled that Duracell and Dart are liable to Emhart for clean-up costs of the facilities and equipment, consequential damages arising from the necessary clean-up time, costs incurred in enforcing the contract, and a portion of third-party action costs. Additionally, Duracell was found liable to Emhart for CERCLA response costs. The Court also determined that Emhart's temporary plant shutdown was a reasonable response to perceived legal and health risks, but its subsequent decision to permanently close the plant and abandon equipment, while economically rational for Emhart, was outside the scope of Duracell's indemnity obligation.

Breach of ContractEnvironmental LawToxic SubstancesPCBsTCECorporate SaleIndemnity AgreementCERCLATSCAClean-up Costs
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 300 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