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

Members for a Democratic Union v. Local 1101, Communications Workers

Plaintiffs, Members for a Democratic Union (MDU) and individual members, sought mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendants, Local 1101, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its officers, to publish an advertisement promoting a 'Defense Fund' in the union's newspaper, 'The Generator'. They argued this right under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The defendants maintained a policy of not accepting paid advertisements, only publishing free notices for union member benefits, and argued this policy was reasonable and consistently applied. The court distinguished the case from previous rulings, noting that 'The Generator' had not 'opened the forum' to commercial speech or taken a stance on the Defense Fund issue. The court also noted that plaintiffs had other viable communication channels. Ultimately, the court found the defendants' policy to be reasonable and granted their motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motion and dismissing the action.

Labor LawUnion DemocracyFreedom of SpeechLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentUnion NewspaperAdvertising PolicyInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentInternal Union Affairs
References
18
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

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

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

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

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

Harper v. Local Union No. 520, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Local Union No. 520, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and its members sued contractors W. O. Harper and O. C. Linscomb to enforce a collective bargaining agreement mandating the employment of only union members. The contractors appealed a temporary injunction, arguing the agreement was unilateral, an unenforceable personal service contract lacking mutuality of remedy, and against public policy by creating a monopoly. The court affirmed the injunction, holding the agreement implied reciprocal obligations for the union, was not a personal service contract in its collective aspect, and was enforceable by injunction due to the inadequacy of legal remedies. Furthermore, the court found no evidence the contract violated public policy, as not all local contractors were bound, and the primary motive for breach was economic unprofitability, not an unlawful purpose.

Labor LawCollective BargainingUnion ContractContract EnforcementTemporary InjunctionSpecific PerformanceMutuality of ObligationPublic PolicyAntitrust LawTexas Civil Statutes
References
26
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

Amalgamated Transit Union v. Newman

This case involves a dissenting opinion regarding a judicial review of a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination. PERB had found the Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 1342 (ATU) condoned a wildcat strike by its members against Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc. in December 1978, violating the Civil Service Law. The hearing officer's recommendation to dismiss the charge was rejected by PERB. The court's majority annulled PERB's determination. The dissent argues that PERB's findings, based on unauthorized absences of union leaders, their inaction to end the strike before a restraining order, and demonstrated control over the members' return to work, were supported by substantial evidence and should have been upheld.

Wildcat StrikePublic Sector LaborUnion CondonationPERB ReviewAdministrative Decision AnnulmentCivil Service Law ViolationsJudicial ScrutinyStrike LeadershipLabor RelationsPublic Employee Strike
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,715 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