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

Comair, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n (In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc.)

Comair, Inc., a debtor in bankruptcy, successfully sought a preliminary injunction against the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). Comair had obtained court approval to reject its collective bargaining agreement and planned to implement new employment terms. ALPA threatened a strike, arguing Comair's actions violated the Railway Labor Act's (RLA) status quo provisions. The court ruled that after lawful rejection of a collective bargaining agreement under the Bankruptcy Code, the RLA's status quo obligations do not apply. Therefore, Comair's implementation of new terms was permissible, and ALPA's proposed strike would violate its RLA duty to avoid interruptions to commerce. The motion for a preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining ALPA from engaging in a strike.

Bankruptcy LawLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementRailway Labor ActNorris-LaGuardia ActSection 1113Airline IndustryStrike InjunctionStatus Quo Doctrine
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. British Airways PLC

This case involves labor unions (plaintiffs) suing British Airways (defendant), an international air carrier, under the Railway Labor Act. The plaintiffs alleged that British Airways violated the status quo by subcontracting reconstruction work at its John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) terminal. The dispute arose after the defendant served notice of intended changes to their collective bargaining agreement, including a modification to the 'scope' clause regarding subcontracting. Plaintiffs argued that the subcontracting constituted a 'major dispute' and sought injunctive relief. The court, however, found that the defendant's action did not violate the status quo because the project was unprecedented and did not impact current employees. Consequently, the court ruled the dispute was 'minor' and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissing the complaint.

Railway Labor ActStatus QuoMajor DisputeMinor DisputeSubcontractingCollective Bargaining AgreementPreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryJFK Terminal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Flight Engineers’ International Association (FEIA) filed an action under the Railway Labor Act against Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) seeking a preliminary injunction. The unions aimed to compel Pan Am to revert to non-concessionary "white pages" agreements after January 1, 1985, arguing that prior "pink pages" concessions were temporary and had expired. Pan Am contended the "pink pages" constituted the status quo for ongoing negotiations. Presiding Judge McLaughlin, consolidating the trial on merits with the injunction hearing, ruled that the parties had explicitly agreed in their contracts that the "white pages" would define the status quo after the expiration of the temporary concessions. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, ordering Pan Am to construct future flight assignment bid lines in accordance with the "white pages," while denying the retrospective reconstruction of already issued January bid lines.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionStatus QuoCollective BargainingLabor AgreementContract InterpretationUnion RightsEmployer ObligationsBid LinesConcessionary Agreements
References
10
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1998

Dunbar v. Park Associates, Inc.

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed an action against Park Associates, Inc., alleging violations of the NLRA for failing to recognize and bargain with the Union and for interfering with employees' rights. The Board sought a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. The Court found reasonable cause to believe that Park Associates, as a successor employer, committed unfair labor practices by undermining union support through discriminatory wage offers and an employee hotline, thus tainting a decertification petition. The Court concluded that an injunction was just and proper to prevent irreparable harm to the Union, preserve the status quo ante, and serve the public interest, thereby granting the petition for an injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesPreliminary InjunctionSuccessor EmployerCollective BargainingUnion DecertificationEmployee RightsSection 10(j)Good Faith DoubtStatus Quo Ante
References
29
Case No. 147-119
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1959

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United Railroad Workers Division of Transport Workers Union of America

Plaintiff railroads sought a preliminary injunction to prevent a strike by unions after unilaterally abolishing positions for diesel tug oilers without prior notice. Defendant unions cross-moved, requesting the court to order the restoration of the fired oilers, arguing the dispute was a 'major dispute' under the Railway Labor Act. District Judge FREDERICK van PELT BRYAN ruled that the determination of whether the dispute was 'major' or 'minor' rested with the appropriate Railway Labor Act agencies. The court granted the unions' cross-motion, directing the railroads to restore the oilers to maintain the status quo ante, thereby also granting the railroads' injunction against the strike conditional on this restoration. A separate request for injunction against other unions in a related action (147-164) was denied due to insufficient evidence of their involvement in encouraging the work stoppage.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrikeWork StoppageStatus Quo AnteDiesel Tug OilersCollective Bargaining AgreementsNational Mediation BoardRailway Adjustment Board
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00381 [234 AD3d 600]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2025

Nunez v. CH Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Defendants moved to amend their answer to assert a collateral estoppel affirmative defense and to dismiss plaintiff worker's past and future pain and suffering claims related to alleged right knee and hip injuries. This motion was based on a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determination that such injuries had resolved to status quo ante. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the defendants' motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this denial, relying on Workers' Compensation Law section 118-a. This section precludes using prior WCB determinations for collateral estoppel purposes in subsequent proceedings, except for determinations of an employee-employer relationship. The court also held, referencing Garcia v Monadnock Constr. Inc., that sections 118-a and 11 (2) of the Workers' Compensation Law have retroactive effect.

Collateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation Law § 118-aRetroactive ApplicationAffirmative DefenseInjury ClaimsAppellate DivisionPreclusionPain and SufferingWorkers' Compensation BoardSupreme Court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,132 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