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

In re the Claim of Spinella

The claimant, who owned and operated a furniture upholstery business for 24 years, closed his business on October 28, 1988, due to a lack of skilled upholsterers and increasing unprofitability, despite efforts to find replacements. The local office initially disqualified him from unemployment insurance benefits for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause. An Administrative Law Judge overruled this determination, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, reinstating the disqualification. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant presented substantial evidence of a compelling reason to close his business, including operating losses in prior years and significant difficulty in hiring skilled workers, which impacted his ability to fulfill orders and meet with customers. The court held that a business does not need to be bankrupt to demonstrate compelling necessity. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Voluntary LeavingGood CauseUnemployment Insurance BenefitsBusiness ClosureSubstantial EvidenceCompelling ReasonUnprofitable BusinessSkilled Labor ShortageReversalRemittal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kon-Tempo Furniture, Inc. v. Kessler

Plaintiff Kon-Tempo Furniture, Inc. initiated a state court action against Upholsterers & Spring Makers Union, Local 76, and its officers, alleging unlawful picketing and coercion to recognize Local 76 despite an existing collective bargaining agreement with Local 1327. The defendants removed the case to federal District Court, claiming a federal question under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Law), specifically Section 303(a) concerning secondary boycotts, to seek damages. Kon-Tempo moved to remand, arguing the federal court lacked original jurisdiction. The District Court determined that the complaint's allegations did not sufficiently describe a secondary boycott under Section 303(a) and that jurisdiction for unfair labor practices, as potentially implied by the complaint, rested solely with the National Labor Relations Board, not the District Court. Therefore, finding no original federal jurisdiction, the court granted the plaintiff's petition to remand the action to the state court.

Labor DisputeRemoval JurisdictionRemand MotionTaft-Hartley ActLabor Management Relations ActSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardFederal Question JurisdictionPicketing
References
7
Showing 1-2 of 2 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