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

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Swank Associated Co.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 17, initiated an action to compel arbitration against Swank Associated Company, Inc., following a labor grievance. Swank removed the case to federal court and filed a third-party action against Local 210, arguing the matter constituted a jurisdictional dispute not subject to arbitration. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Schroeder, examined the collective bargaining agreement to determine the arbitrability of the dispute. It concluded that while an arbitrator could determine if the issue was a jurisdictional dispute, they could not resolve it on the merits if it was found to be jurisdictional. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the grievance was directed to arbitration solely to ascertain whether it constituted a jurisdictional dispute under the agreement.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementJurisdictional DisputesCollective BargainingLabor Management Relations ActFederal CourtPleadings MotionContract InterpretationArbitrabilityUnion Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santo v. Laborers' International Union

This case addresses a dispute between union members and their labor organizations concerning a dues increase implemented during a trusteeship. Plaintiffs challenged the unilateral dues increase by a trustee under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the union's constitution. The court found that the trustee's action violated the LMRDA's provision requiring member participation in dues decisions, even under a trusteeship. However, the claim based on the union constitution was dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the LMRDA claim and to the defendants on the union constitution claim, leaving the issue of damages unresolved.

LMRDAUnion DuesTrusteeshipLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentExhaustion of RemediesUnion ConstitutionVoting RightsDemocratic GovernanceLabor Unions
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. NUMBER 13-10-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2012

Jesus R. Salinas v. David Pankratz and Union Carbide Corporation

Appellant Jesus R. Salinas appealed a trial court's order granting summary judgment to David Pankratz and Union Carbide Corporation in a work-related negligence action. Salinas suffered burns at a Union Carbide plant while employed by a subcontractor, GSI, which had a contract with Union Carbide for workers' compensation insurance through Dow Chemical. The trial court also dismissed Salinas's constitutional claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Union Carbide was a statutory employer under the Texas Labor Code's exclusive remedy defense. Furthermore, the court determined that a lack of notice regarding insurance coverage constituted an administrative violation rather than discrimination, and Salinas's constitutional claims were not viable in this civil case without a federal actor.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy DefenseStatutory EmployerNegligence ActionConstitutional ClaimsFifth AmendmentEighth AmendmentTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Local Union No. 3 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The court addresses demurrers to three indictments against Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for alleged violations of the Sherman Act. The indictments claim the union conspired to prevent the installation of out-of-state electrical equipment in New York City, thereby diverting work to local manufacturers and increasing costs. Defendants argued that the Sherman Act does not apply to labor unions and that their actions constituted a 'labor dispute' immune from antitrust laws. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the alleged conspiracy's effect on market prices and free competition fell within the scope of the Sherman Act, and that the conduct did not constitute a legitimate 'labor dispute.' Consequently, the court overruled the demurrers.

Sherman ActLabor UnionsAntitrust LawInterstate CommerceRestraint of TradeDemurrersIndictmentsElectrical IndustrySecondary BoycottPrice Fixing
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 553, Transport Workers Union v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Plaintiff, Local 553, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, sued defendant Eastern Air Lines, Inc., alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act. The dispute arose from Eastern's agreement to take over Braniff's Latin American routes and hire Braniff flight attendants, which the Union claimed breached their collective bargaining agreement's seniority clause. The Union argued this constituted a 'major' dispute under the RLA, requiring an injunction to preserve the status quo. The court analyzed whether the dispute was 'major' or 'minor,' the irreparable harm to the Union, and affirmative defenses raised by Eastern, including compliance with the Norris-LaGuardia Act and jurisdictional challenges. The court ultimately found the Union likely to succeed on the merits, established irreparable harm, and rejected Eastern's defenses, granting preliminary injunctive relief to the Union. Eastern was ordered to post flights for bid by seniority or compensate affected Union members.

Labor DisputeRailway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority RightsStatus QuoAirline IndustryForeign NationalsInternational RoutesNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
38
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

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782 v. Texas Employment Commission

This case concerns an appeal by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782, AFI-CIO, and 99 individuals challenging a Texas Employment Commission (TEC) decision that denied unemployment compensation benefits. The dispute arose from a General Electric Company plant shutdown in 1957. The appellate court addressed jurisdictional issues related to the aggregate claims amount and venue for non-resident claimants. It affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the union as a party plaintiff, but reversed decisions regarding claimants deemed voluntarily unemployed or not totally unemployed who did not receive immediate vacation pay. The court affirmed the denial of benefits for 11 claimants who received vacation pay prior to the shutdown.

Unemployment CompensationJurisdictionVenueClass Action SuitVoluntary UnemploymentTotal UnemploymentVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementStatutory InterpretationJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fultz v. Union Carbide Corp.

Carl Fultz, an employee of Union Carbide Corporation, sustained a back injury in 1962, leading to a workers' compensation lump sum settlement of $10,200 for 75% permanent partial disability. Union Carbide sought to deduct this settlement amount from Fultz's pension benefits, citing a provision in their Pension Plan. Fultz contested this deduction, arguing that the lump sum was not equivalent to periodic payments and that his disability constituted a "loss of a bodily member" under the plan's exceptions. The Circuit Court of Knox County initially ruled in favor of Union Carbide, a decision which Fultz appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the lump sum payment was indeed in lieu of periodic payments and that a permanent partial disability to the body as a whole does not fall under the "loss of a bodily member" exception as intended by the parties in the pension contract.

Workers' CompensationPension BenefitsDeclaratory JudgmentLump Sum SettlementPermanent Partial DisabilityContract InterpretationStatutory InterpretationDeductibilityBodily Member LossKnox County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Telephone Workers v. New York Telephone Co.

The Union, representing employees in Commercial and Headquarters Departments, sued the Company under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to compel arbitration of a labor dispute. The dispute arose after the Company made substantial changes to work assignments for Representatives and Toll Service clerks, but refused to adjust their wages. The Union contended that the collective bargaining agreement, specifically Appendix A, obligated the Company to negotiate fair wage adjustments for such changes, and that if negotiations failed, the matter was arbitrable under Article XIV. The Company argued that its obligation extended only to negotiation, and that the dispute was not arbitrable. The District Court, applying federal labor law, determined that the issue of whether the Company had an obligation to make fair wage adjustments and whether it performed that obligation, constituted an arbitrable dispute under the agreement's arbitration clause. The court emphasized that doubts about arbitrability should be resolved in favor of coverage. Therefore, the Company's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Union's motion for summary judgment compelling arbitration was granted.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective BargainingArbitration AgreementArbitrabilityWage DisputesWork Assignment ChangesSummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionContract InterpretationIndustrial Peace
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 6,464 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