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

Hertel v. Schwimmer

The plaintiff, Hertel, president of Local 38, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, initiated an action to enforce a one million dollar fine against an unnamed union member. The fine stemmed from the defendant's Federal criminal RICO conviction for misusing union funds, violating article 17, section 1 (m) of the union's constitution. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied Hertel's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court held that the union had complied with its internal procedures and that the fine was consistent with labor law principles established in Scofield v NLRB.

Union DisciplineFinancial MisconductFederal RICO ConvictionSummary Judgment AppealGeneral Associations LawLabor LawAppellate ReversalUnion Constitution ViolationMisuse of Union FundsDue Process in Union Proceedings
References
5
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

Smith v. International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America

Chief Justice Bond dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed a trial court's judgment. The case involves L. R. Smith, who was suspended and fined by Local Union No. 47 for drunkenness and misconduct. Smith sued the International Printing Pressman & Assistants Union of North America, alleging tortious acts. The dissent argues that the International Union should not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the local union's actions, which were outside its by-laws and not authorized or ratified by the International. Furthermore, the dissent contends that Smith's tort claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitation. The dissent concludes that the trial court's judgment, which found no agency and applied the statute of limitation, should have been affirmed.

Agency LawRespondeat SuperiorLabor UnionsInternal Union RemediesStatute of LimitationsTort ActionBreach of ContractUnion DisciplineDissenting OpinionLocal Union Autonomy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 1995

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Lexo

Local 17 of the International Union of Operating Engineers ('Local 17') filed an action against John Lexo, a member of IUOE Local 463, seeking to collect a $5,000 fine. The fine was imposed by Local 17 after Lexo was found guilty of working in its jurisdiction without clearance, a violation of the IUOE constitution and Local 17 by-laws. Local 17 moved for summary judgment under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The court denied the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), concluding that Section 301(a) does not grant federal jurisdiction for a local union to sue an individual member of another local to enforce a monetary fine.

Labor Management Relations ActSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentUnion ConstitutionUnion FinesIntra-union DisputesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor Union LitigationInter-union Relations
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 726

In this appellate action, Local 726 and Local 1056 of the Amalgamated Transit Union appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which found them in contempt of court for violating a preliminary injunction against striking. The Supreme Court had imposed daily fines of $50,000 and $75,000 respectively. The unions challenged the sufficiency of the evidence proving their violation and the excessiveness of the fines. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, relying on a stipulation of the unions' members being on strike and upholding the fines as a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The fines were eventually prorated to account for the unions' mid-strike return-to-work order.

injunction violationcontempt of courtunion strikecivil service lawTaylor Lawdaily finesappellate reviewjudicial discretionlabor disputepreliminary injunction
References
3
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

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. 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

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
Jul 07, 1994

United Transportation Union Local Unions 385 & 77 v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by the United Transportation Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (collectively, 'the Union') against Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ('Metro'). The Union challenges Metro's Rule P as a violation of 45 U.S.C. § 60 (Section 60) of the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Rule P restricts employees from divulging company information or giving statements about accidents to external parties without company authorization, which the Union argues prevents employees from voluntarily furnishing information to interested parties as protected by Section 60. Metro moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and its exclusive grievance resolution procedures. The court denied Metro's motion, concluding that the Union's claim involves the interpretation of a federal statute (Section 60) and is therefore within federal jurisdiction, not preempted by the RLA.

Federal Employer's Liability ActFELARailway Labor ActRLASubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentRule 12(b)Labor DisputesCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemption
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,238 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