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

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

Franklin v. CROSBY TYPE. CO. & INT'L TYPO. UNION

Plaintiff Morris W. Franklin, a Black individual, sued his former employer, Crosby Typesetting Company, Inc., and his union, International Typographical Union, Local 198, alleging racial discrimination. Franklin claimed he was denied experience credit, unlawfully discharged, and that the union failed to represent him due to his race. The employer asserted Franklin was discharged for cause due to disruptive behavior, specifically slamming type, after repeated warnings. The union contended it couldn't help due to Franklin's untimely grievance. The Court found the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding his discharge was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and that the union did not discriminate or breach its duty of fair representation. Recovery was denied to the plaintiff.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Union Duty of Fair RepresentationWrongful TerminationPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofStatute of LimitationsUntimely Grievance
References
6
Case No. 97-CV-368S(F)
Regular Panel Decision

Amalgamated Local Union Number 55, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Retirement Income Fund ex rel. Amalgamated Local Union Number 55, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Welfare Fund v. Fibron Products, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Amalgamated Local Union No. 55 (the Union) and Fibron Products, Inc. (Fibron) concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The Union filed a grievance alleging Fibron failed to remit insurance, pension, and union dues premiums. After resolving union dues, the Union sought to compel arbitration for the remaining issues. Fibron removed the Union's state court petition to compel arbitration to federal court. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Union, as master of its complaint, chose to pursue a state procedural remedy not preempted by federal law. Consequently, the petition to compel arbitration was remanded to state court, and the Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration was dismissed as moot.

Removal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRA PreemptionWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleFederal Question JurisdictionState Procedural RemedyRemand to State CourtMotion to Compel Arbitration
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Local 100, Transport Workers Union

The plaintiffs, Carlyle Bernard and John Simino, members of Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their union from barring Bernard's candidacy for Recording Secretary. Bernard was disqualified due to a union bylaw requiring minimum meeting attendance, which he could not meet due to his work schedule. The plaintiffs argued that this rule was an unreasonable restriction on candidate eligibility under Title I of the LMRDA, thereby denying members equal rights to nominate and vote. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits. The decision highlighted that Title I primarily addresses direct discrimination in voting rights, not challenges to uniformly applied eligibility requirements, which are typically governed by Title IV's post-election enforcement by the Secretary of Labor. The Court also suggested the plaintiffs exhaust internal union remedies.

Union ElectionsLMRDA Title ILMRDA Title IVCandidate EligibilityMeeting Attendance RulesPreliminary InjunctionEqual RightsUnion BylawsInternal Union RemediesJudicial Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

MTA Bus Co. v. Transport Workers Union of America

This case concerns an appeal by Local 100 of Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 12, 2006. The underlying action involved an injunction against a prospective violation of the Taylor Law, leading to a finding of contempt against the union. Consequently, the union's right to deduct dues from its members' paychecks was suspended indefinitely. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no impropriety in the plaintiff's motion for forfeiture of dues collection. Furthermore, the court determined that the ordered forfeiture did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clauses of either the United States or New York State Constitutions.

Taylor LawUnion Dues ForfeiturePublic Employee UnionsContempt ProceedingsDouble Jeopardy ClauseAppellate ReviewLabor RelationsPayroll DeductionsCivil Service ViolationsInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. M2002-02116-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2004

Overnite Transportation v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480

This case originated from a labor dispute in October 1999, involving Overnite Transportation Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 480. Overnite sought injunctive relief against the union for alleged violence during a strike at its Nashville facility and later amended its complaint to include claims for civil contempt due to injunction violations and intentional interference with business relations. The trial court dismissed the civil contempt petition as moot and the intentional interference claim for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the dismissal of the civil contempt petition, holding that Overnite could seek compensatory damages for the union's contemptuous conduct, even if the conduct had ceased. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the intentional interference claim, finding that Overnite's complaint failed to meet the necessary pleading requirements.

Labor DisputeInjunction ViolationCivil ContemptCompensatory DamagesIntentional InterferenceBusiness RelationsAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineInjunction BondRule 65.05(1)
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Schroeder

The case involves a parent union's action to reclaim property from a local union after revoking its charter without notice or a hearing. The International constitution allowed the president to revoke charters and transfer property, with an appeal process. The lower court found a due process deprivation and unlawful forfeiture. However, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment dismissal, stating that important legal questions regarding property title and due process, especially concerning whether local unions held property in trust for the International, were not adequately developed in the record. Further proof, such as the charter, was deemed necessary to clarify the defendants' property ownership rights.

Union disputeCharter revocationDue processProperty rightsSummary judgmentLocal union propertyParent unionInternational constitutionReplevinForfeiture
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

This case involves R.M. Perlman, d/b/a Rebecca Moses Collection (RMC), a garment industry employer, suing two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The suit stemmed from picketing aimed at compelling RMC to enter into a Hazantown Agreement, which RMC alleged involved violence and caused substantial losses. The amended complaint included federal claims under the National Labor Relations Act and state law claims such as prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing federal preemption and RMC's failure to meet New York's specific pleading requirements for actions against unincorporated associations. The court found the state law claims were not preempted due to allegations of violent picketing, aligning with exceptions to federal preemption. However, the court ultimately granted the dismissal of the state law claims (counts two through seven) because RMC failed to allege that every single union member authorized or ratified the violent acts, as required by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Curran. Additionally, the individual defendants Byer and Mazur were dismissed because the remaining federal claim under the Labor-Management Relations Act does not allow for individual liability. A motion to dismiss Rebecca Moses as a plaintiff was denied, pending further evidence on her standing. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to replead the dismissed state law claims.

Labor LawFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsUnincorporated AssociationsUnion LiabilityViolent PicketingHazantown AgreementMotion to DismissNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1983

Velez v. Union Sanitorium Ass'n

The plaintiff initiated an action against Union Sanitorium Association, Inc., alleging medical malpractice by its employee, Peter A. Herman, M.D. This followed a prior action (Action No. 1) against Union Sanitorium, Union Health Center, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, and Herman, where a motion to dismiss was pending due to the plaintiff's failure to serve a bill of particulars. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a second action (Action No. 2) solely against Union Sanitorium, reiterating the same negligence claims. The defendant moved to dismiss Action No. 2, arguing the existence of a pending prior action. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed this decision, granting the defendant's motion and dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2, citing the substantial identity of parties and causes of action between the two cases.

Medical MalpracticeMotion to DismissPrior Action PendingRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelIdentity of PartiesIdentity of Causes of ActionAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureProcedural Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pizer v. Trade Union Service, Inc.

The plaintiff, as president of a labor union, initiated an action seeking to obtain a roster of the union membership from an independent trade newspaper. The defendant, currently possessing the list, was instructed by the union's secretary-treasurer not to release it to the plaintiff due to an internal union dispute concerning the plaintiff's authority and alleged personal use of the list. The defendant's contract with the union did not explicitly provide for such delivery. The Special Term had previously granted a temporary injunction compelling the defendant to surrender the list. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that a mandatory injunction pendente lite is an extraordinary measure justified only in unusual situations to maintain the status quo, which was not the case here given the sharp factual dispute. The court denied the motion and emphasized the need for a speedy plenary trial.

Labor Union DisputeTemporary InjunctionMandatory InjunctionPendente LiteTrade NewspaperMembership RosterUnion FactionsAuthority DisputeAppellate DivisionReversal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 16,371 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