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

White Motor Corp. v. International Union, United Automobile, Workers, Local Union No. 932

This case concerns a dispute over a pension plan between White Motor Corporation and White Farm Equipment Company (White) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Following an arbitration award favoring the UAW, White filed a petition in a New York court to vacate the award, while the UAW simultaneously initiated a suit in a Minnesota District Court to enforce it. The New York court, presided over by Judge Metzner, denied White's motion to stay the Minnesota proceedings. Conversely, it granted the UAW's cross-motion to stay the New York action, emphasizing that the UAW's Minnesota action was the proper forum and that White's claim constituted a compulsory counterclaim in the Minnesota suit, driven by interests of comity and orderly judicial administration.

Labor DisputeArbitration Award EnforcementCollective BargainingPension Plan DisputeLMRAFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictionVenue TransferStay of ProceedingsCompulsory Counterclaim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1988

Hill v. General Motors Corp.

The case involves a plaintiff who sued General Motors for wrongful discharge and the UAW for breach of its duty of fair representation, a "hybrid" action under 29 U.S.C. § 185. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to exhaust internal union remedies. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the adequacy of the union's internal appeals procedures to provide full relief and whether exhaustion would cause unreasonable delay. Additionally, the court denied defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's demand for a jury trial.

Labor LawUnion Grievance ProceduresDuty of Fair RepresentationExhaustion of RemediesSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissWrongful TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Court JurisdictionJury Trial Right
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1993

Schwarz v. United Automobile Workers Union

Joyce Schwarz, a former employee of Trico Products Corp., filed a lawsuit under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) against Trico, UAW, and UAW Local 2100. She alleged that Trico fraudulently induced her into early retirement through the "Windows of Opportunity" program in 1991, claiming Trico continued die casting operations with new employees at reduced wages after her departure. She also claimed the UAW breached its duty of fair representation. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing failure to state a claim under LMRA, the claim being time-barred, and failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies. Magistrate Judge Heckman recommended granting summary judgment, finding that Schwarz failed to exhaust the required grievance procedures under the collective bargaining agreement and the UAW Constitution, as her claims were "inextricably intertwined" with the collective bargaining agreement. The District Court adopted this recommendation and dismissed the case.

Summary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Fraudulent InducementBreach of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementEarly Retirement ProgramUnion Grievance ProceduresStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Rights
References
14
Case No. 86 B 11270 (BRL)
Regular Panel Decision

Iles v. LTV Aerospace & Defense Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal to the District Court concerning two proofs of claim filed in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against LTV Aerospace and Defense Company. The bankruptcy court had disallowed and expunged these claims, filed by the "lies plaintiffs" (nine women employees/applicants) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), arguing that class proofs of claim are impermissible. The District Court reversed this decision, holding that class proofs of claim are permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. It also affirmed that the UAW was authorized to file claims on behalf of its members, both as a creditor in its own right and as an authorized agent. The court found that the legislative history and policy of the Bankruptcy Code support allowing class proofs of claim and that the UAW had properly identified claimants and followed filing requirements.

Bankruptcy LawClass ActionProofs of ClaimChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditor RightsDebtorGender DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Labor UnionAuthorized Agent
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 1963

International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers v. American Metal Products Co.

The case involved American Metal Products Company (Ampco) suing two labor unions, Local 1198 UAW and International Union UAW, for damages resulting from a violent strike in Obion County, Tennessee. The unions' conduct included harassment, mass picketing, intimidation, and violence, leading to significant disruption of Ampco's business operations. The Circuit Court initially awarded Ampco compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the unions' liability for tortious conduct, emphasizing the state's interest in maintaining public order. However, the appellate court reduced the compensatory damages by limiting the compensable period, resulting in a final judgment of $64,737.59 against the unions, including $50,000 in punitive damages.

Labor RelationsUnion StrikeIndustrial ActionTort LawPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesFederal PreemptionLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)PicketingViolence
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joseph v. Local UAW 1097 Union

Carlton Joseph, a former GMC employee and union member, sued United Auto Workers Local 1097 and three individual union officials after his employment was terminated in 1989. Joseph alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to properly pursue his grievance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred and lacked merit. The court found that Joseph's claim accrued more than six months before filing suit in August 1995, thus being untimely under the six-month statute of limitations for such actions. Additionally, the court determined that the union's decision to withdraw the grievance was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, also denying Joseph's motion to join GMC.

Statute of LimitationsDuty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Summary JudgmentGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Wrongful TerminationExhaustion of RemediesUnion InactionSubstance Abuse
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maxwell MacMillan Co., Inc. v. DISTRICT 65, UAW

The plaintiff, Macmillan, sought to stay arbitration initiated by District 65 concerning employee layoffs following Macmillan's acquisition of Prentice-Hall assets. District 65 argued that the layoffs breached an agreement to use seniority in layoff decisions, stemming from Prentice-Hall's unilaterally implemented final offer after its collective bargaining agreement expired. Macmillan contended there was no formal contract to arbitrate, as District 65 had never formally accepted Prentice-Hall's offer in writing. The court, however, ruled that District 65's continuation of work after Prentice-Hall's final offer constituted acceptance by conduct, creating an enforceable interim agreement. Consequently, the court granted District 65's motion for summary judgment, denying Macmillan's, and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration.

arbitrationlabor disputecollective bargaining agreementsummary judgmentcontract formationacceptance by conductinterim agreementsuccessor liabilitylayoff grievanceunion
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DISTRICT 65, UAW v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to appoint a new plan administrator for the Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. Retirement Plan, which was terminated in December 1981. Harper & Row had liquidated the plan, purchased annuities, and recaptured excess contributions, which it used to buy shares from Minneapolis Star & Tribune Company. PBGC contended that Harper & Row's actions in allocating and distributing assets were invalid because they were not carried out by the designated plan administrator. Harper & Row argued that these post-termination activities were ministerial and exempt from ERISA's fiduciary standards. The court ruled that activities taken to implement a plan termination, including selecting an insurer, are discretionary and subject to ERISA's fiduciary standards. However, the court denied PBGC's motion for summary judgment to nullify the entire distribution, stating that Harper & Row assumed a fiduciary role by implementing the termination.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationFiduciary DutyPlan AdministratorAsset AllocationExcess ContributionsSummary Judgment MotionDefined Benefit PlanTrust AgreementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blanks v. United Aerospace Workers Union UAW Local 848

Plaintiff A. Cornell Blanks filed suit against United Aerospace Workers Local 848, and individuals Strowd, Helms, and Munoz, alleging discrimination, retaliation, breach of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) duty of fair representation, and unfair labor practices. These claims arose after Blanks's termination by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., and the union's decision to withdraw his grievance before arbitration. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Blanks was collaterally estopped from re-litigating Vought's alleged breach of the CBA, a prerequisite for his fair representation claim against the union. Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence that the union breached its duty. Blanks's discrimination and retaliation claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, his unfair labor practice claim was preempted by the NLRA, and any asserted state-law claims were also subject to dismissal and preemption. Blanks's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, and all his claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentDiscriminationRetaliationUnfair Labor PracticeLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollateral EstoppelPreemption
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 17 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