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. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarco Industries v. Angello

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioners challenged a determination that they failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements. Petitioners, contractors for a project at Cornell University, were found by a Hearing Officer to have underpaid 10 workers and paid apprentice wages to unregistered apprentices. Crucially, they willfully underpaid Nathan McGeever by paying him an an apprentice rate while he worked without journeyman supervision, thereby entitling him to be paid at the higher journeyman rate. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that petitioners knew or should have known they were violating Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination, dismissed the petition, and upheld the 20% civil penalty imposed.

prevailing wagesapprentice wagesLabor Law § 220willfulnessCPLR Article 78judicial reviewcivil penaltyconstruction contractjourneyman supervisionunderpayment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1992

Amendola v. A.C. Electric Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a breach of contract action over apprentice wage rates. The plaintiffs, apprentices indentured prior to May 31, 1986, were promised higher wage rates based on a 1983 collective bargaining agreement and a 1969 order. The defendant, A.C. Electric Co., Inc., sought to pay lower wages introduced by a 1986 agreement for new apprentices starting after May 31, 1986. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendants could not retroactively and unilaterally reduce the plaintiffs' previously agreed-upon wages, and that the Westchester-Fairfield Joint Electrical Apprenticeship Training Committee and Local 501 were not necessary parties to the action.

apprenticeshipwage disputebreach of contractcollective bargainingsummary judgmentappellate reviewemployer liabilityunilateral modificationcontract lawnecessary parties
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, District Council No. 4 ex rel. Stevens v. New York State Department of Labor

Justice Whalen dissents from the majority's interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e), which governs apprentice wages on public works projects. The dissent argues that the defendants' interpretation, which is aligned with the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) stance, is supported by the statute's language and intent to prevent subversion of prevailing wage laws. Justice Whalen asserts that apprentices should only be paid at the lower apprentice rate when performing work within their registered trade classification. If an employee works outside their designated apprenticeship trade, they are entitled to the full journey-level wage for the work actually performed. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that the DOL's interpretation, given its role in implementing and enforcing prevailing wage and apprenticeship standards, warrants judicial deference as it is rational and consistent with the statute's plain meaning. Justice Whalen would have affirmed the lower court's order and judgment that favored the defendants by granting their motion for a declaratory judgment and denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.

Labor LawApprenticeship ProgramsPrevailing WagePublic WorksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceNew York Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentDissenting Opinion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 1965

State Commission for Human Rights v. Farrell

This case involves an appeal by the appellants (a union) from a court order dated July 26, 1965. The order sought to enforce a directive from the State Commission for Human Rights, compelling the parties to cease and desist from discriminating against Negroes in the selection of sheet metal apprentices and to establish a new class of 65 apprentices. The appellants contested the court's authority to dictate the number of apprentices, arguing it infringed on arbitration agreements. The court, however, affirmed the order, finding that all parties had previously agreed to the formation of two classes, each consisting of 65 apprentices, as part of measures to discontinue discriminatory practices. The decision emphasized that the court acted within its jurisdiction to enforce the commission's order, especially given the prior agreement.

DiscriminationHuman RightsApprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawCourt Order EnforcementArbitration AgreementsJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtNew York State LawCivil Rights Enforcement
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06963
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v. New York State Dept. of Labor

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's prevailing wage law, Labor Law § 220 (3-e), concerning apprentice wages on public work projects. The International Union of Painters & Allied Trades and glazing contractors challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) policy which stipulates that apprentices must perform tasks within their registered trade classification to be paid apprentice rates. Plaintiffs argued this policy increased costs and limited on-the-job training for glazier apprentices whose curriculum included tasks classified as ironwork. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the DOL's interpretation as rational. The Court reasoned that the statute's language was ambiguous, and the DOL's policy prevented employers from using apprentices as cheap labor outside their specific trade, thereby ensuring proper training and maintaining construction standards.

Prevailing Wage LawApprentice WagesPublic Work ProjectsGlazier ApprenticesIronworker TasksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceLabor Law § 220Trade ClassificationWorkforce Development
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borden v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices

H. N. Borden sued two labor unions, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, and Local Union 100, for damages. Borden, a member of both unions, alleged that Local Union No. 100 unlawfully refused to allow him to work on a promised job, causing lost wages and mental anguish. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing Borden's membership in the unions and the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. On appeal, the court addressed whether a union member could sue their union and whether state courts had jurisdiction. The court sustained Borden's points, concluding he had the right to sue the unions in state court for tort damages, as the NLRB lacks jurisdiction over such claims. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for trial.

Labor disputeUnion membershipRight to sueState court jurisdictionNational Labor Relations BoardTort actionLost wagesEmployment discriminationTaft-Hartley ActUnincorporated associations
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2015

Claim of Barrett v. New York City Department of Transportation

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant injured in a 2011 work-related motor vehicle accident. A WCLJ classified the claimant with a permanent partial disability and a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, ruling that he would be entitled to 250 weeks of benefits if his full wages ceased. The Board affirmed this, leading the employer to appeal, arguing that the claimant's current full wages meant a 100% wage-earning capacity, rendering the 25% loss finding unlawful. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, distinguishing between 'loss of wage-earning capacity' (fixed, for benefit duration) and 'wage-earning capacity' (fluctuating, for weekly rates).

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityBenefit DurationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMotor Vehicle AccidentNew York Workers' Compensation BoardDisability Classification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Claim of Lesperance v. Gulf Oil Co.

The claimant, a former truck driver for Gulf Oil Company, developed bilateral torn rotator cuffs, diagnosed in September 1991, while working part-time for Susse Chalet. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the condition an occupational disease, fixing the disablement date as September 3, 1991, and attributed it to employment with both Gulf and Susse Chalet, allowing Susse Chalet to pursue apportionment. The current appeal concerns the Board's decision from April 3, 2000, which established the claimant's average weekly wage based solely on employment with Susse Chalet. The claimant argued that due to the disease's degenerative nature and long employment with Gulf, wages from both employers should be considered for the average weekly wage. However, the Board's decision to base the average weekly wage solely on Susse Chalet employment was affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law provisions that define wage and average weekly wage based on employment at the time of injury and absence of provisions for successive employers.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational Disease ApportionmentDate of DisablementSuccessive Employment WagesRotator Cuff InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationDegenerative DiseaseStatutory DefinitionsConcurrent Employment DistinctionBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,772 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