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
Mar 17, 1971

Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2

The Secretary of Labor brought an action to set aside the January 9, 1970 election of officers for Liquor Salesmen’s Union, Local No. 2, and to order a new supervised election. The Secretary alleged violations of 29 U.S.C. § 481(g), specifically that the Union used its financed publication, "The Journal," to promote incumbent candidates and that an employer used company funds to influence the election. The court found that the Union's use of "The Journal" did violate § 481(g) and that this likely affected the election outcome, given the narrow margins of victory for incumbents. However, the court found no direct employer contribution to promote candidates. The court also rejected the defendant's First Amendment and vagueness challenges to § 481(g). Consequently, the court voided the election and ordered a new election under the Secretary's supervision.

Union Election LawLMRDA Section 481(g)Union Funds MisuseCampaign LiteratureEmployer Election InterferenceExhaustion of Union RemediesFirst Amendment RightsLabor Organization GovernanceElection IrregularitiesFederal District Court
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re New York Electrical Worker' Union

This case concerns a dispute over the validity of an election held by the New York Electrical Workers' Union after a period of receivership. Petitioner Maurice B. Jarvis challenged the election, alleging that no notice was given to members about the termination of the receivership or the annual meeting, and that a quorum was not present. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the application. On appeal, the court examined the union's by-laws regarding meeting notices and quorums, noting inconsistencies and non-compliance with the Membership Corporations Law. The appellate court found that while no statute or by-law explicitly required notice for annual meetings, the context of the receivership made it advisable. Critically, the court determined that the common-law rule for voluntary associations, where any number present constitutes a quorum, did not apply to a corporation governed by statute. Given that only 20 members were present out of 1,200, no valid quorum was established under any by-law provision or the Membership Corporations Law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's dismissal, ordered the election to be set aside, and mandated a new election with proper notice to all eligible members.

Corporate Election DisputeUnion GovernanceReceivership ImpactBy-law InterpretationQuorum RequirementsNotice of MeetingsGeneral Corporation LawMembership Corporations LawAppellate ReviewCorporate Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shultz v. Radio Officers' Union of the United Telegraph Workers

The Secretary of Labor filed an action against the Radio Officers’ Union (ROU) under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The Secretary sought to nullify the 1969 election for President and National Committeeman—Oakland due to two alleged incidents of misconduct. The court found that ROU President Joseph Glynn improperly interfered with Lester Parnell’s candidacy for National Committeeman—Oakland by coercing him to withdraw, violating 29 U.S.C. § 481(e). Additionally, the court found that ROU discriminated against presidential candidate R. C. Smith by failing to provide him with the union's ship list for campaign mailings, a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 481(c). Both violations were deemed to have potentially affected the election outcome. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the Secretary of Labor.

Labor Union ElectionElection MisconductLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Candidate EligibilityUnion DiscriminationFreedom of Speech (within union elections)Pension JeopardyCampaign LiteratureMembership List AccessInternal Union Remedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1986

Mayes v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 106

Plaintiffs George Mayes and John Gregory Fox, union members, initiated an action against their union, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 106, alleging violations of the LMRDA and breach of the union's constitution. They sought a preliminary injunction to alter the ballot for an upcoming union election, requesting separate listings for consolidated offices and the exclusion of certain candidates. The Union opposed the application and cross-moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the action, reasoning that granting the requested pre-election relief would inappropriately involve the court in supervising a union election, a role reserved for the Secretary of Labor under Title IV of the LMRDA. The Court affirmed that Title IV provides the exclusive post-election remedy for union election challenges.

Union Election DisputeLMRDALabor Union GovernancePreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderSubject Matter JurisdictionUnion BylawsInternal Union RemediesElection ChallengeSecretary of Labor Oversight
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jiminez v. Briody

This document addresses an application for a preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs, who advocate for revisions to the By-Laws of Local 1-2, Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO. The plaintiffs sought to change the proposed election venue from the Hilton Hotel to the 14th Street Armory and to increase the number of election observers for an all-day election scheduled for April 18. The court denied the request to alter the election site, reasoning that the selection of venue is an administrative matter and found no evidence of impropriety. Regarding the observers, the court also denied judicial designation of a specific number, noting that the defendants were reviewing the matter and the Honest Ballot Association would administer the election, ensuring fairness. Ultimately, the application for a preliminary injunction was denied in its entirety.

Union electionPreliminary injunctionElection proceduresVenue disputeObserver rightsLabor disputeInternal union affairsFair electionJudicial intervention
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transport Workers Union of America v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100

This case involves a dispute between the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), a national union, and its local affiliate, Local 100. TWU initiated the action to compel Local 100 to adhere to its Appeals Committee's decisions regarding a contested election. Local 100 counterclaimed for reimbursement of costs incurred from re-running elections, alleging TWU breached its constitution and violated the LMRDA through the actions of its president and Appeals Committee. The court ultimately dismissed Local 100's counterclaim, ruling that TWU's actions were not the proximate cause of Local 100's expenditures for election monitors or re-run elections, as Local 100 voluntarily chose to incur these costs.

Labor union electionUnion governanceInternal disputeCampaign rulesElection irregularitiesLMRDAFiduciary dutyBreach of union constitutionProximate causationSummary judgment
References
4
Case No. Nos. 56 & 58
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

Matter of Seawright v. Board of Elections / Matter of Hawatmeh v. State Board of Elections

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated cases, *Matter of Seawright* and *Matter of Hawatmeh*, to resolve a departmental split regarding the interpretation of Election Law filing deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. In *Seawright*, the Appellate Division, First Department, had excused a candidate's belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance due to COVID-19 related illness and quarantine, deeming it not a fatal defect. Conversely, in *Hawatmeh*, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found a candidate's late filing of a certificate of acceptance to be a fatal defect despite pandemic circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed the *Seawright* decision and affirmed the *Hawatmeh* decision, holding that Election Law § 1-106 (2) mandates strict compliance with filing deadlines. The Court concluded that the failure to timely file constitutes a fatal defect that courts cannot excuse, even under unique or extenuating circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that it is the legislature's role to fashion exceptions to the law. Dissenting judges argued for a more flexible interpretation based on legislative intent behind pandemic-related laws and prior Election Law reforms, allowing for substantial compliance during the unprecedented health crisis.

Election LawCOVID-19 PandemicFiling DeadlinesFatal DefectStrict ComplianceBallot AccessJudicial DiscretionLegislative IntentAppellate Division ConflictQuarantine Requirements
References
39
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

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

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
Showing 1-10 of 2,464 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