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 Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Earth Tech, Inc. v. Angello

The City of Glens Falls, Warren County, sought to privatize its water treatment facilities, contracting with a private entity (petitioner) for operation and maintenance. Special legislation allowed this, mandating prevailing wages for construction but not explicitly for operation and maintenance. A dispute arose regarding whether petitioner was required to pay prevailing wages under Labor Law § 220 to former city workers transferred to its employ. The Department of Labor found Labor Law article 8 applicable, a finding affirmed by the respondent. The court confirmed this determination, dismissing the petitioner's challenge and emphasizing the strong public policy of Labor Law § 220 to protect workers' wages in public works.

Prevailing WagesPublic WorksLabor LawCPLR Article 78Collective Bargaining AgreementMunicipal ContractsWater TreatmentEmployee BenefitsStatutory InterpretationPublic Policy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Telephone Workers v. New York Telephone Co.

The Union, representing employees in Commercial and Headquarters Departments, sued the Company under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to compel arbitration of a labor dispute. The dispute arose after the Company made substantial changes to work assignments for Representatives and Toll Service clerks, but refused to adjust their wages. The Union contended that the collective bargaining agreement, specifically Appendix A, obligated the Company to negotiate fair wage adjustments for such changes, and that if negotiations failed, the matter was arbitrable under Article XIV. The Company argued that its obligation extended only to negotiation, and that the dispute was not arbitrable. The District Court, applying federal labor law, determined that the issue of whether the Company had an obligation to make fair wage adjustments and whether it performed that obligation, constituted an arbitrable dispute under the agreement's arbitration clause. The court emphasized that doubts about arbitrability should be resolved in favor of coverage. Therefore, the Company's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Union's motion for summary judgment compelling arbitration was granted.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective BargainingArbitration AgreementArbitrabilityWage DisputesWork Assignment ChangesSummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionContract InterpretationIndustrial Peace
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Ward Leonard Electric Co. & Local 419, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers

The petitioner moved to stay arbitration, arguing the respondent union's grievances were untimely and non-arbitrable as they involved the 'wage structure'. The court determined that the timeliness of the grievances was an issue for the arbitrator, not the court. Regarding arbitrability, the court found that the dispute over job content and evaluation, even if leading to wage increases, did not constitute a dispute over the fundamental 'wage structure' as excluded by the contract. The court concluded that the dispute fell within the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the petitioner's motion for a stay of arbitration was denied.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationTimelinessService of ProcessArbitrabilityContract InterpretationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureWage StructureJob Evaluation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pineda v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.

This case addresses a dispute over wage payments to undocumented alien workers employed by Kel-Tech Construction, Inc. on public works projects. The plaintiffs, including Adeline Carpió and Jose Luis Zamora, sued Kel-Tech and its sureties, Reliance Insurance Company and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, for unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits, alleging a money-laundering scheme by Kel-Tech. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs' use of fraudulent documents to obtain employment barred their claims, and also moved to dismiss claims related to the ES. 24 project. The court had previously dismissed claims for ES. 24 and declined to enforce releases from two plaintiffs. This decision denies defendants' motion for summary judgment, asserting that New York's Labor Law, particularly Section 220, is not preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) concerning the payment of earned wages to undocumented workers. The court emphasizes public policy aims to ensure fair wages for all workers and identifies unresolved factual disputes regarding both plaintiffs' alleged fraudulent conduct and Kel-Tech's own compliance with IRCA and its alleged 'unclean hands' in the wage payment scheme. The court also denied dismissal of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims related to William Taft High School.

undocumented workersprevailing wageLabor Law Section 220Immigration Reform and Control Actsummary judgmentfraudulent documentationquantum meruitunjust enrichmentpublic works contractswage dispute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kawatra v. Gardiner

This case concerns an appeal regarding a dispute over unpaid wages and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employee Sunil Kawatra initially won a judgment for unpaid October 1986 wages against Dr. W.H. Gardiner and Nephrology, Inc. in General Sessions Court. On de novo appeal to the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Kawatra sought additional FLSA damages and fees. The Circuit Court awarded the unpaid wages but denied the FLSA claims, deeming Kawatra an exempt executive employee. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the FLSA was not intended to extend minimum wage and overtime protections to highly salaried exempt employees in employment contract disputes.

Fair Labor Standards ActExecutive Employee ExemptionUnpaid WagesAttorney's FeesEmployment Contract BreachSalary Basis TestAppellate ReviewWage and Hour LawExempt EmployeeManagerial Duties
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otis Eastern Service, Inc. v. Hudacs

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the respondent regarding the petitioner's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages and wage supplements to 28 workers at the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center project. The petitioner argued that workers were properly classified as general laborers and welder helpers, while the respondent contended they should be classified as intermediate laborers under the Laborers’ Union Local 17 Agreement. The Hearing Officer initially sided with the petitioner, but the respondent rejected this, finding willful underpayments. The court affirmed the respondent's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the finding of willfulness was justified.

Prevailing WageWage SupplementsWorker ClassificationLabor LawCPLR Article 78Willful UnderpaymentUnion ContractsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 07103 [121 AD3d 542]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2014

Stecko v. RLI Insurance

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting class certification to plaintiffs in a dispute over unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits. The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the prerequisites for class certification under CPLR 901(a), including numerosity, commonality, and typicality of claims. The court rejected the defendant RLI Insurance Company's arguments regarding the individualization of wages and the plaintiffs' knowledge of the claims, noting that a class action is a superior vehicle for resolving such wage disputes. The court also clarified that the 'rigorous analysis' standard used in federal courts for class certification under rule 23(b) is not required under New York's CPLR 901(a), which should be broadly construed.

Class CertificationPrevailing WageSupplemental BenefitsLabor LawCPLR 901Appellate ReviewWage DisputeJoinder ImpracticableCommonalityTypicality
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1981

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. McCollum

The case concerns an appeal of a workers' compensation award where the key dispute was the average weekly wage rate. The trial court's finding on the wage rate was based on a purported stipulation, which the defendant carrier disputed, citing non-compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The appellate court, authored by Justice Akin, determined that the alleged stipulation failed to meet Rule 11's requirements, which mandates agreements to be in writing and signed or made in open court and entered of record. Consequently, the court found no evidence to support the wage rate finding, reversing the judgment and remanding the entire case for a new trial, aligning with the principle against piecemeal litigation in workers' compensation cases.

Workers' CompensationStipulation EnforceabilityTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 11Average Weekly Wage RateEvidence SufficiencyReversal and RemandAppellate ProcedureTrial Court ErrorOral AgreementsIndivisible Cause of Action
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,270 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