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

Walling v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry.

The case determines whether railway trainees ("cubs" and "posters") are considered "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The plaintiff Administrator sought injunctive relief to compel the defendant railway to comply with the Act for these trainees, arguing they should be compensated and records kept. The court found that trainees primarily work for their own benefit and receive no measurable benefit for the company, thus lacking a contract of employment. Payments made to "cub" trainees were deemed gratuities or incentive pay, not wages that would establish an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court held that neither "cub" nor "poster" trainees are "employees" under the Act, and even if they were, the company's current practices largely comply with the Act. Therefore, judgment was entered for the defendant railway, denying the Administrator's request for injunctive relief.

Fair Labor Standards ActEmployee StatusTraineesRailway IndustryCubbingPostingGratuity vs. WagesInjunctive ReliefEmployer-Employee RelationshipContract of Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Railway Carmen v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

The plaintiffs, six unions representing employees of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant's 'Voluntary Resignation Program.' Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) due to direct bargaining with employees and unilateral changes to collective bargaining agreements. Defendant argued the dispute was 'minor,' falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railway Arbitration Board (NRAB), as it involved the interpretation or application of an existing contract or past practices. The court determined the dispute was 'minor' because the defendant's claim of past practices regarding voluntary resignation programs was nonfrivolous, placing it within the NRAB's exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Railway Labor ActCollective BargainingSummary JudgmentVoluntary Resignation ProgramNational Railway Arbitration BoardMajor DisputeMinor DisputeFederal JurisdictionUnion RightsEmployer Practices
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2006

Green v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.

Plaintiff Frederick D. Green, a conductor for The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS), sustained a ruptured eardrum during a mandatory hearing test conducted by Dr. William J. Till, an agent of KCS. Green was subsequently terminated for alleged time sheet falsification, which he claims was a pretext for retaliation due to his injury and intent to file a FELA claim. Green sued KCS under the Federal Employment Labor Act (FELA) for negligence and retaliatory discharge, also alleging state-law retaliation and emotional distress. The Court granted summary judgment for KCS on emotional distress claims, but denied summary judgment on retaliatory discharge, finding these claims are not preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The Court granted Green's motion regarding Dr. Till acting as KCS's agent but found a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Dr. Till's negligence, thus denying Green's motion on that issue.

Federal Employment Labor Act (FELA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Retaliatory DischargeNegligenceSummary JudgmentAgency DoctrinePreemptionWorkers' Compensation RetaliationEar InjuryMedical Malpractice
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fowinkle v. Southern Railway Co.

This case addresses whether railroad employees fall under the coverage of the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1972 (OSHA). The appellants, the Commissioners of Public Health and Labor, attempted to inspect Southern Railway's Chattanooga Diesel Shop following a complaint, but were denied entry by the manager, who cited an exemption under state law. This prompted a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief. The Chancellor ruled that railroad employees were not covered by OSHA, a decision upheld by the higher court. The court's reasoning was based on a state statute that exempts railroad employees whose safety and health are 'subject to protection' under federal acts, irrespective of whether specific federal regulations have been promulgated, acknowledging the legislature's intent to avoid redundant state oversight where federal law has a preemptive scope in railroad safety.

OSHARailroad SafetyState LawFederal LawPreemptionStatutory InterpretationExemptionOccupational HealthSafety RegulationsTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, alleging unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. The dispute stemmed from Korean Air Lines' non-renewal of a contract with Triangle Aviation Services, leading to job losses and subsequent picketing by the Teamsters' Airline Division. The central legal question was whether the court had jurisdiction under the NLRA or if the Railway Labor Act applied, as the latter does not prohibit secondary picketing. The court distinguished a prior Second Circuit ruling, determining that because all parties involved (the Airline Division, Korean Air Lines, and AMR) were subject to the Railway Labor Act, the dispute fell under its purview. Consequently, the court denied the request for an injunction.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Secondary PicketingUnfair Labor PracticesInjunctionJurisdiction DisputeUnion RepresentationAirline Industry Labor DisputeStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

The case concerns Metro-North's motion to vacate a previous injunction that prohibited it from implementing urinalysis drug screening for its employees at periodic and return-to-duty physical examinations. Metro-North argued that recent Supreme Court decisional law, specifically Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association (1989), reclassified such drug testing as a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), placing it within the exclusive jurisdiction of an RLA adjustment board. The court found that Metro-North's position was 'arguably justified' by past practice of requiring urine and blood specimens and by collective-bargaining agreements authorizing medical examinations. Consequently, the court dissolved the August 16, 1988 injunction and denied the plaintiffs' requests for a new injunction compelling arbitration or restraining the drug-testing policy, as it lacked jurisdiction for such relief in a minor dispute not yet submitted to an adjustment board.

Railway Labor ActDrug TestingMinor DisputeMajor DisputeInjunction DissolutionCollective Bargaining AgreementUrinalysis ScreeningFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)Law of the Case DoctrineRes Judicata
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Transportation Union v. DELAWARE AND HUDSON RAILWAY, CO.

This case addresses a labor dispute between the United Transportation Union (UTU), Delaware & Hudson Railway Company (D & H), and the National Mediation Board (NMB) under the Railway Labor Act. UTU sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting its right to self-help (strike) after purportedly terminating collective bargaining negotiations with D & H. The NMB intervened, attempting to compel mediation, which UTU resisted, claiming NMB lacked jurisdiction due to proper termination of conferences. The Court, denying UTU's motion for summary judgment, clarified that while mutual termination is not required, an unequivocal termination and good faith bargaining are prerequisites for exercising self-help. Ultimately, the court found genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the unequivocal termination of conferences and UTU's good faith bargaining efforts, thus precluding summary judgment.

Railway Labor ActCollective BargainingNegotiation TerminationSelf-HelpMediationSummary JudgmentGood Faith BargainingLabor DisputeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otten v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Theodore F. Otten, a former employee of Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company, was discharged for refusing to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a requirement under a union shop agreement sanctioned by the Railway Labor Act. Otten's refusal was rooted in religious conscience, not hostility towards unions. The Court of Appeals had previously affirmed a denial of his motion for a temporary injunction and a three-judge court, signaling the likely outcome. Despite the equitable appeal of Otten's case and his financial loss, the district court felt bound by the appellate court's prior ruling on the merits. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss outright, reasoning that a federal question regarding the Railway Labor Act's construction might still exist. However, the court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim for relief, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without costs.

Union Shop AgreementRailway Labor ActReligious ObjectionEmployment DischargeConscientious RefusalFederal JurisdictionAppellate ReviewLabor LawTrial Court RulingConstitutional Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Compressed Air, Foundation, Tunnel, Caisson, Subway, Cofferdam, Sewer Construction Workers, Local No. 147 of New York, New Jersey States & Vicinity

The Regional Director of the Second District of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against a labor organization (the Union) under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Director believed the Union violated Sections 8(b)(3) and 8(d) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively and failing to provide proper notice for modification or termination of an existing collective bargaining agreement with Andrew Catapano Co., Inc. and Grow Construction Co., Inc. (C-G). The Union ceased work on a sewer construction project in Brooklyn, New York, arguing negotiations concerned a future contract, not modification of the current one. District Judge Bartels found reasonable cause to believe the work stoppage stemmed from a dispute over modifying an existing agreement without proper notice, constituting an unfair labor practice. The petition for injunction was granted, and a motion to amend the petition to include termination violation was also granted.

National Labor Relations ActInjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingContract ModificationContract TerminationWork StoppageLabor DisputeRegional Director NLRBSection 10(j)
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 13,987 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