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

Swift Independent Packing Co. v. District Union Local One

This case involves a dispute between Swift Independent Packing Company and District Union Local One over a labor arbitration award. Swift sought to vacate the award, which was issued by Arbitrator Mario A. Procopio and favored the Union regarding work schedules and overtime pay under a collective bargaining agreement. Swift raised several objections, including alleged arbitrator bias, reliance on facts not in evidence, the award lacking essence from the agreement, and refusal to hear testimony. The District Court, emphasizing its limited scope of review over arbitration awards, denied Swift's motion for summary judgment to vacate the award and granted the Union's motion to confirm it, concluding that no grounds for vacatur existed and that Swift had waived its right to object to the alleged bias.

Labor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardVacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardArbitrator BiasJudicial ReviewWaiver DoctrineOvertime PayWork Schedules
References
19
Case No. ADJ4669093 (POM 0259861)
Regular
May 06, 2014

JAMES C. RIALS, III vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.; AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed James C. Rials, III's Petition for Reconsideration against Swift Transportation Company, Inc. and AIG Claim Services because the petition was untimely filed. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report and recommendation, finding the petition lacked merit due to its late submission. Furthermore, the applicant was warned that future filings could result in being declared a vexatious litigant.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyVexatious litigantReport and RecommendationAdministrative law judgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSwift Transportation CompanyAIG Claim ServicesADJ4669093
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1994

United Transportation Union Local Unions 385 & 77 v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by the United Transportation Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (collectively, 'the Union') against Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ('Metro'). The Union challenges Metro's Rule P as a violation of 45 U.S.C. § 60 (Section 60) of the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Rule P restricts employees from divulging company information or giving statements about accidents to external parties without company authorization, which the Union argues prevents employees from voluntarily furnishing information to interested parties as protected by Section 60. Metro moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and its exclusive grievance resolution procedures. The court denied Metro's motion, concluding that the Union's claim involves the interpretation of a federal statute (Section 60) and is therefore within federal jurisdiction, not preempted by the RLA.

Federal Employer's Liability ActFELARailway Labor ActRLASubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentRule 12(b)Labor DisputesCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemption
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valdes v. Swift Transportation Co.

Lori A. Valdes sued her employer, Swift Transportation Co., Inc., for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Swift Transportation moved to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to compel arbitration, citing two signed arbitration agreements. District Judge Chin granted Swift's motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration agreements were enforceable under New York law, even if the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply to Valdes as a transportation worker. The court rejected Valdes' arguments regarding the arbitration agreement's validity, waiver of jury trial rights, forum inadequacy, unconscionability, and cost burden. The action was dismissed without prejudice, allowing for reinstatement if further proceedings are needed post-arbitration.

Employment LawSexual HarassmentRetaliationArbitration AgreementTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawFAA ExemptionMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Arbitration Act
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1989

Marroquin v. American Trading Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
Case No. ADJ2103088 (OAK 0267250), ADJ9764355, ADJ9764356, ADJ9764357
Regular
Mar 04, 2016

Donna Funcheon vs. San Leandro Hospital, TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address liability apportionment and penalty awards in a case involving San Leandro Hospital and its insurers, Transportation Insurance Company (TIC) and Zurich Insurance Company (Zurich). The Board affirmed TIC's 80% liability for benefits while transferring sole administration responsibility to Zurich, reversing the prior finding that TIC should administer. The Board denied the applicant's request for increased penalties for delayed permanent disability, finding the WCJ's initial award was already in error. Finally, the Board corrected a procedural issue by ordering all penalties, including those for delayed attorney fees, to be paid directly to the applicant, not the attorney.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTransportation Insurance CompanyZurich Insurance CompanyLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 4650Labor Code section 5814.5Permanent Disability IndemnityAttorney FeesReconsiderationPetition for Reconsideration
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indian Harbor Insurance v. Global Transport System, Inc.

Indian Harbor Global Insurance Company filed a complaint against Global Transport System seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to indemnify Global for the loss of Barge MST 17, and a stay of arbitration proceedings. Global moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, relying on a binding arbitration clause in their insurance policy. The dispute arose after the Barge MST 17 sank following Global's attempt to amend its policy for navigation coverage, which Indian Harbor claimed was not properly accepted. The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, granted Global's motion, dismissing the complaint and compelling Indian Harbor to proceed to arbitration, finding that the broad arbitration clause covered disputes regarding policy modifications or terminations.

Arbitration AgreementInsurance Coverage DisputeMaritime LawPolicy EndorsementContract InterpretationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFederal Arbitration ActMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefSeaworthiness
References
19
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
Aug 09, 1946

In re the Arbitration between Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., & Fifth Avenue Coach Co.

The Transport Workers Union of America, O.I.O., applied to vacate an arbitration award made in a dispute with the Fifth Avenue Coach Company. The core of the dispute revolved around the implementation of one-man operation of double-deck buses and related employment terms. The Union contended that the arbitrator failed to render a decision on the primary question regarding the implementation of one-man operation, despite it being a key item in the submission agreement. The court found that the arbitrator explicitly avoided deciding this issue, thus failing to fulfill the terms of the submission. Consequently, the court ruled that the award was not mutual, final, and definite on all matters submitted for arbitration, rendering it invalid. The application to vacate the award was therefore granted, with an order for resubmission.

ArbitrationAward VacatedLabor DisputeCollective BargainingOne-Man OperationDouble-Deck BusesArbitrator AuthorityScope of SubmissionUnionPublic Transport
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 8,417 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