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

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1992

Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 851

Plaintiff Thomas Browne, a security guard, sought to recover for personal injuries after being struck by a brick thrown during a union picket line. The incident occurred while he was escorting a truck through a picket line authorized and directed by defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 851, at Emery's facility. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $400,000 plus interest and costs, based on evidence that the union was aware of recurring violence and failed to address it. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the judgment, rejecting the union's arguments that Labor Law § 807 (6) applied to damage claims and that the security log was improperly admitted. The court emphasized that specific proof of 'knowing tolerance' by other union officials was not required, as the shop steward on the scene was clothed with plenary authority to direct the strike on behalf of the union.

Personal InjuryLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityPicket Line ViolenceAgencyRatificationNorris-LaGuardia ActBusiness RecordsEvidence AdmissibilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ostrowski v. LOCAL 1-2, UTILITY WORKERS UNION, ETC.

Plaintiff Richard Ostrowski, a shop steward, was removed from his position by defendant Local 1-2, Utility Workers Union, after organizing a meeting about the dangers of low-level radiation at a power plant. Plaintiffs allege violations of Ostrowski's free speech and due process rights under the LMRDA. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to exhaust internal union remedies and that a shop steward's position is not protected. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that exhaustion was not required due to a free speech violation and the elapsed time, and that LMRDA rights extend to union officials. The court granted plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions to reinstate Ostrowski and prevent further disciplinary actions, citing irreparable injury from a 'chilling effect' on free speech, but denied the motion to enjoin the presentation of new evidence in Ostrowski's internal appeal.

Labour LawUnion RightsFree SpeechDue ProcessLMRDAShop StewardRetaliationPreliminary InjunctionExhaustion of RemediesIrreparable Injury
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Realty Company v. Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal stemming from a premises liability action. Union Realty Company, owner of a shopping center, was sued following the death of an employee, Jo A. Parker, at a Family Dollar store. Union Realty then sued Family Dollar Stores (FDS) and its insurer, Travelers, alleging breach of a lease agreement requiring FDS to name Union Realty as an additional insured. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of FDS's motion to dismiss for mootness, citing Travelers' reservation of rights during settlement of the underlying Parker lawsuit. However, the court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Union Realty, finding the lease did not obligate FDS to provide insurance coverage for Union Realty's sole negligence in common areas. Additionally, the court vacated the trial court's determination that FDS breached the lease due to a $250,000 deductible in the insurance policy.

Premises LiabilityInsurance CoverageBreach of ContractLease AgreementDuty to DefendAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentMootness DoctrineAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
8
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

Cahill v. Metallic Lathers Union Local No. 46

Plaintiffs initiated a suit under the Labor Management Relations Act against their Local Union, challenging disciplinary actions that prohibited them from serving as foremen or shop stewards. They argued these actions, affirmed by the International Union's General President, violated the International Union's constitution. The court found that the dispute was an internal union conflict, lacking the industrial peace implications or collective bargaining agreement relevance required for Section 301(a) jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court noted that determining if the discipline constituted an unfair labor practice, which was central to the constitutional claim, fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Consequently, the District Court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

Labor Management Relations ActInternal Union DisputeSubject Matter JurisdictionUnfair Labor PracticeUnion Constitution ViolationNLRB JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionSection 301(a)Section 8(b)(1)(B)Disciplinary Action
References
10
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

In re the Arbitration between Burnished Metal Corp. & Kamen

Petitioner Burnished Metal Corporation (BMC) sought to stay arbitration with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1968, regarding an alleged $2,020.95 delinquency in pension and welfare fund contributions. Special Term granted BMC's application, ruling that conditions precedent to arbitration, specifically consultations between BMC, the shop steward, and the union representative, had not been fulfilled as required by their collective bargaining agreement. The union cross-moved to compel arbitration, which was denied. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's order, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the preliminary consultation steps before resorting to arbitration, finding they were not merely procedural stipulations but unfulfilled prerequisites.

Arbitration StayCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureConditions PrecedentDelinquent ContributionsPension FundWelfare FundUnion DisputeEmployer-Union RelationsContract Interpretation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,279 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