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

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Musto v. Transport Workers Union of America

Plaintiffs, former Title II Utility Men for American Airlines, represented by TWU and Local 501, alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act. They claimed the unions breached their duty of fair representation by deliberately eliminating their jobs during negotiations in 2002, leading to layoffs, and by failing to pursue their grievances. Plaintiffs also asserted American improperly laid them off, breaching collective bargaining agreements and Letters of Understanding. The court denied the unions' motions to dismiss the fair representation claims, finding sufficient evidence of bad faith and discrimination. However, plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages against the unions were dismissed. American's motion to dismiss, arguing minor disputes and lack of collusion, was also denied, as the court found a valid hybrid claim for breach of the CBA inextricably linked to the union's fair representation breach.

Railway Labor ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLayoffsSeniority RightsContract NegotiationGrievance ProcedureStatute of LimitationsPunitive DamagesHybrid Actions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. Transp. Workers Union of Am. Local 556

Plaintiff Charlene Carter, a former flight attendant, sued Southwest Airlines and her union, Local 556, alleging wrongful termination and retaliation. She claims Southwest terminated her for RLA-protected speech and religious discrimination under Title VII after she posted pro-life content and criticized union leadership on Facebook. Carter also alleges Local 556 retaliated against her and breached its duty of fair representation by complaining to Southwest about her posts. The Court denied Southwest's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding her claims were not minor disputes under the RLA. However, the Court dismissed Carter's RLA claims against Southwest for failing to establish anti-union animus and constitutional retaliation claims against both defendants because they are private entities. The Title VII religious discrimination claim against Southwest was allowed to proceed, and the breach of duty of fair representation claim against Local 556 was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend. The RLA-based retaliation claim against Local 556 was also allowed to proceed.

Railway Labor ActTitle VII DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationWrongful TerminationRetaliation ClaimDuty of Fair RepresentationSocial Media PolicyUnion ActivitiesFreedom of SpeechPrivate Employer
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case, presided over by District Judge Spatt, addresses post-trial motions concerning attorney's fees and damages following a class action. Initially, plaintiffs sued employer Robert Abbey, Inc. under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN) (settled for $110,000) and both the employer and Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of fair representation. After class decertification, the claims of fourteen plaintiffs against the Union went to a jury, which found the Union liable for breaching its duty of fair representation and awarded compensatory damages to eight of them. The Court denied the Union's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law but vacated the jury's compensatory damage award, instead granting nominal damages of $1 to each of the eight prevailing plaintiffs due to lack of evidentiary support for the monetary award. The Court also determined that plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to recover attorney's fees for the Union's breach of duty of fair representation, calculating these fees based on reasonable hours and rates, and awarded specific amounts to the law firms Hall & Sloan ($4,775.00) and Davis & Eisenberg ($42,475.00), for a total of $47,250.00. Additionally, the Court awarded $1,177.15 in costs and denied the plaintiffs' application for an award of prejudgment interest.

Attorney's FeesNominal DamagesBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActSettlementJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsLodestar MethodClass Action Decertification
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1991

Gold v. Local Union No. 888

Leonard Gold, an employee for 29 years, was terminated by John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company following accusations of theft from a policyholder. Gold denied the allegations, attributing them to the policyholder's senility. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Local Union No. 888, UFCW-AFL-CIO, represented Gold through the grievance process but ultimately withdrew their intent to arbitrate after an allegedly inadequate investigation by union official Andre Henault. Gold filed an action alleging breach of collective bargaining agreement by the Company and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. The court denied John Hancock's motion for summary judgment, finding sufficient facts for a jury to infer the union handled Gold's grievance arbitrarily. Additionally, the court granted the union's motion to dismiss John Hancock's cross-claim, which was filed after the union settled with Gold, ruling it was barred.

duty of fair representationsummary judgmentgrievance processarbitrationcollective bargaining agreementwrongful terminationlabor lawunion settlementcross-claimfederal civil procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seeman v. Local 32B-32J, Service Employees Union

Jonah Seeman, a long-term doorman with Gracie Gardens Owners Corp., was suspended due to bedbug infestation and subsequently resigned. He later sought to rescind his resignation and challenged both his suspension and the Union's handling of his grievance. Seeman alleged that Gracie Gardens breached their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and that his union, Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union, breached its duty of fair representation during arbitration. The court found no evidence that the Union acted arbitrarily or in bad faith during the arbitration process, which led to the dismissal of Seeman's grievance. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Gracie Gardens and the Union, as a breach of duty by the Union is a prerequisite for a claim against the employer in a hybrid § 301/fair representation case.

collective bargaining agreementduty of fair representationsummary judgmentLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations Actarbitrationwrongful suspensionemployee resignationbedbug infestationunion representation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812

Jose Johnson sued his former employer, Pepsi-Cola, and his union, Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812, alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation concerning his discharge for dishonesty. Johnson was summarily discharged on April 6, 1982. The union's initial arbitration demand was denied, upholding the dismissal. Johnson later requested a second arbitration, arguing the collective bargaining agreement prohibited summary dismissal. The court analyzed Article 13 of the agreement, concluding that summary discharge for dishonesty was permissible, a conclusion supported by extrinsic evidence. As Johnson could not establish that the employer breached the contract, his claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation failed. The defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Duty of fair representationSummary judgmentCollective bargaining agreementArbitrationEmployee dischargeUnion liabilityContract interpretationLabor lawFederal courtEastern District of New York
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliva v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, Local One

This action stems from an employment dispute involving Carmine Oliva, his labor union Local One, and his former employer Capitol, along with union Vice-President Louis Damato. Oliva sued the defendants, alleging false representations by Local One leading him to waive arbitration, and breaches of the duty of fair representation and contract. He also claimed Capitol breached the collective bargaining agreement. The court asserted federal jurisdiction over Oliva's claims under the duty of fair representation and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding Oliva's claims lacked merit because he admitted to the theft that led to his termination, thus negating his claim of detrimental reliance. The defendants' request for litigation costs was denied.

Employment DisputeLabor LawDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionBreach of ContractFraudEmployee Termination
References
10
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 6,342 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