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. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
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
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

New York Electrical Contractors' Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This decision addresses an application filed by Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a defendant in the original action. The union sought to quash the summons and service of other legal papers, asserting misnomer and improper service. The court noted that under Section 13 of the General Associations Law, actions against unincorporated associations must be brought against the president or treasurer, and service must be made upon these officers. Despite the plaintiff naming the union's president and treasurer in its papers, service on the local union was made on its general counsel and its financial secretary individually, not its president or treasurer. The court found this service insufficient to establish jurisdiction over the local union and, consequently, granted the motion to quash the service.

JurisdictionService of ProcessUnincorporated AssociationMisnomerGeneral Associations LawCivil Practice ActMotion to QuashLabour UnionStatutory InterpretationProcedural Law
References
6
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

Cap Makers' Union, Local 2H Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union ex rel. Alvarez v. Feinstein

The case involves an action brought by Cap Makers Union, Local 2H, against former officers Michael Feinstein and Luz Rivera, seeking to prevent them from using a similar name for a rival union. Initially filed in New York State court based on state business law and common law, the defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting a federal question under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. The federal district court, presided over by Judge Sweet, sua sponte remanded the action back to state court. The court found that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the plaintiff's complaint did not establish a federal cause of action, and federal preemption, raised as a defense, is insufficient for removal. The court also denied Local 2H's request for costs and Rule 11 sanctions against the defendants for improper removal.

Federal jurisdictionRemoval actionRemandState law claimsFederal questionNational Labor Relations ActPreemption defenseTrade name disputeUnion disputeCosts and sanctions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lubliner v. Reinlib

This case involves two motions by defendants in a libel suit. The plaintiffs are the Pocketbook Workers' Union of New York and three individual plaintiffs, against the International Ladies' Handbag, Luggage, Belt & Novelty Workers’ Union and its president, Reinlib. The first motion under Rule 103, seeking to strike the plaintiff union's name from the title, was granted due to redundancy. The second motion under Rule 106 sought to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a cause of action, based on several grounds related to union liability and the General Associations Law. The court, extensively discussing the applicability of Civil Practice Act § 876-a regarding vicarious liability in labor disputes, granted dismissal of the complaint against the defendant union and its president (in representative capacity) for insufficient pleading, but granted leave to amend. The motion to dismiss against Reinlib as an individual tort-feasor was denied, as was the contention regarding concurrent suit under General Associations Law § 16.

LibelLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityGeneral Associations LawCivil Practice ActNorris-La Guardia ActVicarious LiabilityOrganizational CampaignMotions to DismissFreedom of Speech
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377

The Attorney-General initiated an action seeking a permanent injunction against the Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377, its president Murray Brodsky, and business agent Jack Flaum. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in an illegal combination, violating New York's Donnelly Anti-Trust Law (General Business Law § 340), by coercing manufacturers and retailers in the smoked fish industry to deal exclusively with Distributors Division members. Although the defendants claimed exemption as a bona fide labor union, the court found that the Distributors Division was merely a jobbers association disguised as a union to create a monopoly and restrain trade. The organization's activities involved threats, intimidation, and misleading picketing to compel adherence to its demands, ultimately harming competition and forcing retailers to pay higher prices. Consequently, the court ruled that the injunction should be granted, concluding that the Distributors Division was not a legitimate labor union and its practices were illegal.

anti-trustmonopolylabor unioninjunctiontrade restraintGeneral Business LawDonnelly Actjobbers associationcoercionpicketing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

League of Voluntary Hospitals & Homes v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Workers Union

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaynard v. Transport Workers Union

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary injunction against the Transport Workers Union of America (T.W.U.) and Local 504 for alleged unfair labor practices involving a proscribed strike against Triangle Maintenance Corporation due to a jurisdictional dispute. The dispute arose when Triangle, a new cleaning contractor at John F. Kennedy Airport, planned to replace existing T.W.U. represented cleaning workers with a new crew under a different union (32B, which later disclaimed the work). The T.W.U. encouraged a strike to retain jobs for its members. The court, presided over by District Judge Weinstein, denied the injunction, reasoning that the dispute was a traditional economic struggle to retain jobs, not a jurisdictional dispute as defined by section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, especially since there was no conflict between rival unions claiming the same work at the time the picketing began.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActJurisdictional DisputeUnfair Labor PracticesTemporary InjunctionStrike ActionEconomic DisputeEmployer-Union RelationsCollective BargainingWork Assignment Dispute
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,585 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