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

Roberts v. New York City Office of Collective Bargaining

This case concerns an appeal regarding the New York City Fire Department's "zero tolerance" policy, which mandates automatic termination for EMS employees who fail or refuse drug tests. Unions representing these employees argued that this policy should be subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining and a lower court ruled against the unions, asserting that the policy falls under management's disciplinary rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that disciplinary actions for EMS personnel are the sole province of the Fire Commissioner under the New York City Charter, and that deterring illegal drug use by EMS workers is critical to public safety and the FDNY's core mission.

Public SafetyEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Drug Testing PolicyZero ToleranceCollective BargainingMandatory BargainingNew York City Fire Department (FDNY)Fire CommissionerDisciplinary AuthorityNew York City Charter
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration of Controversies between Central Aviation & Marine Corp. & International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers

This case concerns a motion by a Union to compel arbitration based on an alleged collective bargaining agreement dated August 8, 1962. The Employer opposes arbitration, contending no valid contract was formed. Affidavits from both sides presented conflicting accounts of negotiation authority and intent, particularly regarding John F. Riley's power to bind the Employer. The National Labor Relations Board had previously found the August 8, 1962 document to be a collective bargaining contract for bar purposes in a separate decertification hearing. However, the District Court, finding the N.L.R.B. order not res judicata and based on the parties' conduct post-August 8, 1962, concluded that no collective bargaining agreement was entered into. Consequently, the Union's motion was denied and the Employer's cross-petition dismissed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract ValidityLabor UnionEmployer-Employee RelationsNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)NLRB OrderDecertification PetitionAuthority to ContractGood Faith Bargaining
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Alarm Trade Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This action was initiated under Section 301(a) of the National Labor Relations Act by a plaintiff seeking $450,000 in damages from a defendant union. The plaintiff alleged a breach of Article VIII, section III of their collective bargaining agreement, which stipulated the union's obligation to organize the burglar alarm industry. The defendant moved to dismiss the action or, alternatively, to stay proceedings pending arbitration. The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, affirming the validity of the plaintiff's claim for relief. However, the Court granted the alternate motion, concluding that the dispute fell within the broad arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement and ordered the proceedings to be stayed pending arbitration.

Labor LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractNational Labor Relations ActStay of ProceedingsDamages ClaimUnion ObligationsGrievance ProcedureFederal Court Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levitt v. Board of Collective Bargaining

The City of New York promulgated Personnel Policy and Procedure Bulletin number 401-86, requiring city employees to disclose and repay debts as a condition for appointment or promotion. Three unions challenged this policy before the Board of Collective Bargaining, asserting it constituted an improper labor practice as it unilaterally changed terms of employment without collective bargaining. The Board sided with the unions, ruling the city had acted improperly. The City then petitioned the court to set aside the Board's determination. The court granted the City's petition, finding the Board's decision unreasonable and arbitrary, concluding that the policy concerned management's fundamental right to set employee qualifications and maintain integrity, and was therefore exempt from mandatory collective bargaining. The court also critiqued the Board's balancing test regarding employee privacy rights.

Improper Labor PracticeCollective BargainingManagerial PrerogativeDebt CollectionEmployee QualificationsPublic EmployeesPrivacy RightsAdministrative CodeJudicial ReviewPERB
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Kingsport Press, Inc.

The plaintiffs, officials of various labor unions, initiated class actions against the defendant, alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements due to the defendant's refusal to pay vacation pay on March 22, 1963. The employees ceased work on March 11, 1963, to commence an economic strike, thereby voluntarily terminating their employment before the specified vacation pay date. The court analyzed the collective bargaining agreements, emphasizing the clear language requiring employees to be "on the payroll" on the fourth Friday in March. The court concluded that striking employees, by voluntarily terminating their employment, did not meet the eligibility criteria for vacation pay. Consequently, the court found that the employees were not entitled to the relief sought.

Collective BargainingVacation PayLabor UnionsEconomic StrikeEmployment TerminationContract InterpretationEmployee RightsVested RightsPayroll EligibilityClass Action
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laborers International Union of North America v. Clark Material Handling, Inc.

Special Term erred in concluding an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement was invalid because it gave the union the unilateral right to arbitrate at its option. This decision contrasts with Federal labor law principles where a union's exclusive right to invoke arbitration does not invalidate the agreement. The court also clarified that the union reserving the right to strike alongside arbitration does not render the agreement invalid. However, a factual question arose concerning the validity of the collective bargaining agreement itself, specifically whether the employees who signed it on the employer's behalf had the authority to bind the company. Therefore, the matter was remitted for a hearing to determine the agreement's validity.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ProvisionMutuality of ObligationFederal Labor LawUnion RightsEmployer AuthorityContract ValidityRemittiturAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2004

District Council 37 v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment affirming a determination by the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York. The petitioner public employee organizations (District Council 37 and Communications Workers of America) sought to annul the Board's decision regarding the City's unilateral implementation of a merit pay program for certain employees in the Human Resources Administration (JOS titles). The unions alleged the City violated the New York City Collective Bargaining Law by implementing the program without proper collective bargaining during a representation proceeding. The Board found the City had violated the NYC-CBL but denied the unions' request to compel the City to implement a similar merit pay program for non-JOS titles, citing inconsistency with its prior cease and desist order. The Supreme Court confirmed the Board's decision, and this judgment affirms that decision, finding the Board's actions to be reasonable and consistent with its statutory interpretation and that no new arguments warranted a different outcome.

Collective BargainingMerit Pay ProgramUnilateral ImplementationImproper PracticePublic Employee OrganizationRepresentation ProceedingStatus QuoAdministrative ReviewLabor DisputeAffirmation of Judgment
References
10
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06041 [130 AD3d 507]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y. v. Bianco

The Transport Workers Union of Greater New York filed a complaint against Carmen Bianco, challenging a provision in their collective bargaining agreement. The union argued that the agreement's procedures for predisciplinary suspensions violated Civil Service Law § 75. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department. The appellate court concluded that rights under Civil Service Law § 75 can be supplemented, modified, or replaced by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, thereby upholding the dismissal of the union's complaint.

Collective Bargaining AgreementPredisciplinary SuspensionsCivil Service LawAppellate DivisionMotion to DismissUnion RightsLabor LawAffirmed DecisionJudicial PrecedentEmployee Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dow Electric, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 910

Plaintiff Dow Electric Inc. sought to vacate a Labor-Management Committee's award for violating collective bargaining agreements, while Defendant Local Union 910 IBEW counterclaimed for confirmation. The dispute centered on whether Dow Electric Inc. effectively terminated its collective bargaining authority with the Association before the 2000-2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) came into effect. The Court found that Plaintiff's July 31, 1998, letters unequivocally terminated the Association’s collective bargaining authority, and subsequent correspondence did not retract this. Therefore, the 2000-2003 CBA did not bind Plaintiff, and the Committee lacked jurisdiction over grievances based on it. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding the 2000-2003 CBA award, vacating the $991,629.89 award. However, the Court affirmed the Committee's $63,011.48 award for violations of the 1997-2000 CBA, ruling that disputes based on acts prior to an agreement's expiration can still be arbitrated, and the awards for interest, liquidated damages, and back pay were plausibly grounded in the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawUnionSummary JudgmentArbitrationContract TerminationMulti-Employer Bargaining UnitPre-hire AgreementGrievanceAudit
References
8
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 3,146 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