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

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1971

Commarato v. McLeod

The President of Local 400 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election, pending the final disposition of unfair labor practice charges. The Regional Director opposed this, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. The court reviewed the factual background, including a postponed election, subsequent unfair labor practice charges filed by unions against Art Steel Company, Inc., and the Board's decision to proceed with the election despite its own 'blocking charge rule'. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary order to proceed with the election, as it did not fall under the narrow exception of the Board acting in direct contravention of a specific statutory mandate. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActRepresentation ElectionPreliminary InjunctionJudicial ReviewNLRB JurisdictionUnfair Labor PracticesBlocking Charge RuleStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1974

Kaminsky v. Connolly

This appellate decision addresses an action by a plaintiff seeking pension benefits from the Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund. The initial trial court granted the plaintiff a pension against the union despite finding him a stranger to the fund and no specific relief sought. However, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff, an owner-driver, was never covered by the collective bargaining agreement and made no contributions to the pension fund. Furthermore, even if considered an employee, he lacked the requisite 15 years of service for eligibility. The court also clarified that federal law governs the union's duty of fair representation, requiring proof of bad faith, which the plaintiff failed to provide. Consequently, the judgment awarding damages was modified, and the complaint against the appellant union was dismissed.

Pension FundLabor UnionTaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementOwner-DriverEmployee EligibilityFair Representation DutyFederal LawAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Portlette v. Toussaint

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action regarding breach of a duty of fair representation, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support the claim. The decision cited several precedents to support the dismissal. Additionally, the plaintiff's other arguments were found to be without merit.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAppellate AffirmationCivil ProcedureCPLR 3211Rockland CountySupreme CourtSufficiency of Pleadings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 1545, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. Vincent

Local 1545, a labor union, initiated this action against Merle D. Vincent, Jr., Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), seeking to enjoin a representation election for employees of Pilgrim Furniture Company, Inc. The NLRB had directed the election due to a 'hot-cargo' clause present in Local 1545's collective bargaining agreement, a clause subsequently rendered unenforcible by Congress. The court first established jurisdiction over the regional director, dismissing arguments regarding indispensable parties. The core legal question was whether the NLRB's policy to direct an election based on the hot-cargo clause was so unfounded as to warrant judicial intervention. The court ultimately found a reasonable basis for the NLRB's policy and concluded that the board's action neither violated an explicit statutory command nor raised a significant constitutional question. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the motion for a temporary injunction was also dismissed as moot.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Representation ElectionInjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementHot-Cargo ClauseJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor Practice
References
4
Case No. ADJ8546699
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

MARIA HERRERA vs. YONEKYU USA, INC., SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to lien claimants Preferred Scan and Tower Imaging, rescinding the dismissal of their liens. The WCAB found that the notices of representation filed by the lien claimants' representative at the lien trial, despite not being formal "change of representation" notices, were sufficient under WCAB Rule 10774.5(e)(2) because no prior representation notice was on file. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings before a different judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationWCJDismissed LiensNotice of RepresentationWCAB Rule 10774.5Lien TrialRepresentative AppearanceRescinded Orders
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1992

Altimari v. Parker

Plaintiff, a maintenance mechanic for the Wappingers Central School District, was terminated from his employment. After arbitration led to reinstatement without back pay, plaintiff sued his union, the Wappingers Federation of Transit, Custodial and Maintenance Workers, alleging a breach of its duty of fair representation due to inadequate legal representation during the arbitration hearing. The Supreme Court denied the union's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to disqualify the union's counsel. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of fair representation, as mere negligence by a union representative is insufficient for such a claim. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant union and dismissed the complaint.

Duty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceBreach of DutyAppellate ReviewUnion RepresentationEmployment LawLabor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliva v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, Local One

This action stems from an employment dispute involving Carmine Oliva, his labor union Local One, and his former employer Capitol, along with union Vice-President Louis Damato. Oliva sued the defendants, alleging false representations by Local One leading him to waive arbitration, and breaches of the duty of fair representation and contract. He also claimed Capitol breached the collective bargaining agreement. The court asserted federal jurisdiction over Oliva's claims under the duty of fair representation and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding Oliva's claims lacked merit because he admitted to the theft that led to his termination, thus negating his claim of detrimental reliance. The defendants' request for litigation costs was denied.

Employment DisputeLabor LawDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionBreach of ContractFraudEmployee Termination
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coureau v. Granfield

Plaintiff Victor Coureau commenced a pro se action against Bill Granfield, President of Local 100 UNITE HERE, alleging various wrongs including personal injuries, termination of benefits, fraudulent inducement, and racial discrimination. The Court construed these allegations as arising from the Union's duty of fair representation and/or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, primarily due to the claims being barred by the six-month statute of limitations for breach of the duty of fair representation. Additionally, the Title VII claim failed because a breach of the duty of fair representation was not established and the plaintiff did not plead exhaustion of administrative remedies with the EEOC.

Duty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantTitle VII Civil Rights ActLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActUnion GrievanceRacial DiscriminationEmployment Termination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lahendro v. New York State United Teachers Ass'n

Plaintiff Michael F. Lahendro, a guidance counselor, sued the New York State United Teachers Association (NYSUT) and Brushton-Moira Teachers Association for breach of the duty of fair representation and negligence after NYSUT failed to timely file a demand for a hearing against his employment termination. This oversight led Lahendro to accept a settlement including retirement. Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which the Supreme Court denied, leading to this appeal. The appellate court reversed, dismissing the breach of fair representation claim based on the 'Martin v Curran' rule, which requires proving all individual union members authorized or ratified the conduct for suits against unincorporated associations, which plaintiffs could not do. Additionally, the negligence claim was dismissed as actions against unions for duties under collective bargaining agreements must be for breach of fair representation.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationNegligenceUnincorporated AssociationMartin v Curran RuleEducation LawCPLRLate FilingSettlement AgreementEmployment TerminationGuidance Counselor
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 502 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