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

Kaynard v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case addresses whether peaceful picketing, ostensibly to inform the public about substandard wages, can be enjoined as a secondary boycott or an inducement to strike in a jurisdictional dispute. The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary injunction against Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, alleging unfair labor practices after Local 25 picketed a job site where Unity Electric Co. was a subcontractor. Despite Local 25's claim that the picketing was solely informational, employees of other subcontractors refused to cross the picket lines, causing work stoppages. The court, considering Local 25's past actions and the totality of circumstances, found reasonable cause to believe that the picketing had an objective beyond mere public information, aiming to effect a secondary boycott and compel the assignment of electrical work to Local 25 members. Consequently, Local 25 was enjoined from further picketing at the Highland site pending final disposition by the Board.

Labor DisputeSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputePicketingTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesArea StandardsNational Labor Relations ActUnion ActivityConstruction Industry
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local 459, International Union of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against Local 459, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. The petitioner alleged that the Union's picketing constituted unfair labor practices, specifically a secondary boycott, under Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. The dispute arose from the Union's picketing of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's premises, where Honeywell, the primary employer, had employees maintaining computers. Despite Metropolitan establishing reserved gates for neutral employers, the Union continued picketing, preventing deliveries by other companies like Mallon and Jackson. Applying the criteria from General Electric and Carrier Corporation, the Court found reasonable cause to believe a secondary boycott was occurring as the reserved gates were used only by neutral employees whose duties were unrelated to Honeywell's normal operations. Consequently, the Court granted the injunction, restraining the Union from picketing the reserved loading platforms.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottInjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeCommon Situs PicketingReserved Gate DoctrineLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesNLRB
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manhattan Steam Bakery, Inc. v. Schindler

This case involves an appeal concerning alleged unlawful secondary boycott activities. The appellant's representatives followed the plaintiff's vehicles to customer locations, threatening picketing if customers did not cease purchasing plaintiff's non-union delivered products. If customers did not comply, they were picketed with signs indicating the store received products delivered by non-union drivers. The dissenting opinion argued these actions constituted an unlawful secondary boycott per se, citing prior cases where similar picketing was enjoined, especially when aimed directly at customers rather than just advertising a union label. The dissent also discussed the applicability of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act. The final judgment reversed the lower court's decision, dismissed the complaint, and set aside inconsistent findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Secondary BoycottPicketingLabor DisputeUnfair Labor PracticesCoercionInjunctionUnion LabelCivil Practice ActAppellate AuthorityCustomer Patronage
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. United Auto Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against an unnamed respondent labor organization under Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition stemmed from a charge by Intertype Company, alleging unfair labor practices, specifically secondary boycotts, by the respondent under Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the Act. The respondent, involved in a labor dispute with Intertype, picketed Intertype's Brooklyn plant and subsequently picketed Eagle Warehouse & Storage Company, Inc., where Intertype stored machines. This secondary picketing prevented Eagle's employees from handling Intertype's machines, thereby interfering with Eagle's contractual obligations. The court examined whether the respondent's actions violated the Act and rejected defenses based on the 'ally doctrine' and 'common situs'. Ultimately, the court found reasonable cause to believe a violation occurred and issued the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActSecondary BoycottTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesLabor DisputePicketingAlly DoctrineCommon SitusFederal District CourtLabor Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rentner v. Sigman

This case concerns a manufacturer's application to continue a temporary injunction against a trade union due to an ongoing strike and associated picketing. The dispute arose from disagreements over productivity and employee discharges, leading to union members picketing the manufacturer's facility in the Garment Center Capitol. While acknowledging the legality of strikes and peaceful picketing, the court found evidence of large numbers of picketers causing disorderly conduct, obstructing entrances, and interfering with the manufacturer's business and non-union employees. Judge Bijur concluded that the mass picketing constituted an unjust invasion of the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court granted a limited injunction, setting specific numerical limits for pickets at each entrance of the building to balance union's right to persuasion with plaintiff's right to conduct business freely.

injunctionlabor disputetrade unionpicketingstrikeemployer rightsemployee rightspeaceful persuasiondisorderly conducttemporary restraining order
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cee Jay Sportswear, Inc. v. Sinensky

Plaintiff, Gee Jay Sportswear, a knit goods manufacturer, sued an unnamed defendant union to enjoin picketing, interference with deliveries, and for money damages. The union began picketing plaintiff's premises, alleging that Louis Gordon, a former employee with a prior agreement with the union, was associated with the plaintiff in violation of his contract. The plaintiff contended the picketing aimed to compel recognition of the defendant union, while the defendant insisted it protested Gordon's alleged contract breach. The court found the picket signs, which claimed a 'strike', to be false and misleading as no strike was occurring. Ultimately, the court directed judgment in favor of the plaintiff, enjoining the defendant union from picketing in a manner that falsely implied a strike, but denied the broader injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff.

PicketingInjunctionLabor DisputeFalse RepresentationUnion OrganizationCollective BargainingEmployer-Employee RelationsUnfair Labor PracticesTemporary Restraining OrderContract Violation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

Brentwood Academy sued the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) and its Executive Director, Ronnie Carter, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments due to TSSAA's Recruiting Rule. The court found the rule unconstitutional as applied to Brentwood Academy for its 'Spring Practice Letter' and complimentary tickets, ruling it was not narrowly tailored, violated substantive due process due to vagueness and lack of notice, and procedural due process because of the consideration of ex parte evidence during deliberations. Consequently, the court declared the August 23, 1997 penalties imposed by the TSSAA against Brentwood Academy void and enjoined them.

Education LawSports LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessFreedom of SpeechRecruiting RuleState ActorUnconstitutional As AppliedInjunctive Relief
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Dressmakers Joint Council, International Ladies Garment Workers Union

This case involves a petition for a temporary injunction filed by the acting Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Dressmakers Joint Council, International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU). The NLRB sought to enjoin the union from picketing Newport Miss, Inc. (Newport) following a complaint that the union was engaging in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act. The union argued that its picketing had lawful objectives, including protesting an employee discharge and informing the public about Newport's substandard wages, and denied any current organizing interest. The court found that the Regional Director had reasonable grounds to believe the union's picketing had an unlawful objective of compelling recognition or employee union membership, causing irreparable injury to Newport and its contractors. Consequently, the court granted the temporary injunction against the union's picketing for 60 days or until the NLRB determines the merits of the pending charge.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingNational Labor Relations ActUnion OrganizingSecondary BoycottNLRB EnforcementEmployer RightsLabor Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Big Apple Supermarkets, Inc. v. Dutto

This case involves a supermarket chain (plaintiff) that initially filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, seeking an injunction and damages against labor unions (defendants). The plaintiff alleged that the unions were picketing its supermarkets, attempting to discourage customers from buying products from 'Gourmet' (producers of snack products) due to alleged substandard wages, even though the unions did not represent the plaintiff's or Gourmet's employees. The defendants subsequently removed the action to federal court, contending that the complaint implicitly alleged a violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act, specifically a 'secondary boycott', thereby establishing federal jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Act. The federal court examined whether the complaint described conduct falling within the prohibition of Section 8(b)(4), particularly requiring a primary dispute between an employer and a union. The court concluded that the complaint did not indicate any primary dispute, nor did the consumer product picketing described, even if a primary dispute existed, constitute a prohibited secondary boycott under established Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the defendants failed to prove federal jurisdiction, and the motion to remand the case back to the State court was granted.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottFederal JurisdictionMotion to RemandLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActConsumer PicketingUnfair Labor PracticeState Court Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Planet Wood Products Corp. v. Doe

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of TV tables, sought a permanent injunction against the Seafarers International Union of North America, Marine Allied Workers Division, to prevent recognition picketing. The plaintiff argued the picketing aimed to destroy an existing collective bargaining agreement with Local 48, United Industrial Unions, which it claimed was presumptively valid. The defendant union contended federal pre-emption under the Taft-Hartley Act, arguing the plaintiff's business was interstate and the contract with Local 48 was a collusive "sweetheart" agreement. The court found that the plaintiff's activities affected interstate commerce, thus establishing federal pre-emption and limiting state court jurisdiction in the absence of a proven breach of peace. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's contract with Local 48 was largely unenforced and not genuinely protecting its workers, thereby overcoming the presumption of its validity. Consequently, the defendant's picketing was deemed lawful, and the court denied the injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Labor disputeRecognition picketingFederal pre-emptionTaft-Hartley ActCollective bargaining agreementUnfair labor practicesState jurisdictionInterstate commerceInjunctive reliefContract validity
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 231 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