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
Jun 05, 1974

Whitman Electric Inc. v. Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Plaintiff Whitman Electric, Inc. brought an action against Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, alleging damages from an illegal secondary boycott and property damage. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, asserting collateral estoppel based on a prior NLRB decision, which the Second Circuit had enforced, finding defendant liable for secondary activity. Defendant cross-moved to dismiss the property damage claim. The court granted plaintiff's motion, concluding that the NLRB's findings on the secondary boycott had collateral estoppel effect, and denied defendant's cross-motion due to a genuine issue of material fact regarding the property damage. The case is set to proceed to trial to determine damages for both claims.

Labour LawSecondary BoycottCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataSummary JudgmentJury TrialNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDistrict Court
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers

This case addresses a motion by the defendant, Seafarers International Union, to dismiss the third cause of action in a complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to induce its employees to violate a collective bargaining agreement and engage in a secondary boycott, thereby forcing the plaintiff to cease doing business with another entity. The core legal question is whether a conspiracy to commit acts prohibited by Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 187), which targets secondary boycotts, is actionable. The court reviewed previous Supreme Court decisions affirming the broad scope of Section 303. Ultimately, the court concluded that the third cause of action adequately states a claim for relief under Section 303. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottConspiracyMotion to DismissLabor Management Relations ActCollective BargainingFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationUnion Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manhattan Steam Bakery, Inc. v. Schindler

This case involves an appeal concerning alleged unlawful secondary boycott activities. The appellant's representatives followed the plaintiff's vehicles to customer locations, threatening picketing if customers did not cease purchasing plaintiff's non-union delivered products. If customers did not comply, they were picketed with signs indicating the store received products delivered by non-union drivers. The dissenting opinion argued these actions constituted an unlawful secondary boycott per se, citing prior cases where similar picketing was enjoined, especially when aimed directly at customers rather than just advertising a union label. The dissent also discussed the applicability of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act. The final judgment reversed the lower court's decision, dismissed the complaint, and set aside inconsistent findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Secondary BoycottPicketingLabor DisputeUnfair Labor PracticesCoercionInjunctionUnion LabelCivil Practice ActAppellate AuthorityCustomer Patronage
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sage Realty Corp. v. ISS Cleaning Services Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of the owners of six commercial buildings and their managing agent, Sage Realty Corporation, brought an antitrust claim against the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, Inc. (RAB) and ISS Cleaning Services Group, Inc. (ISS). The plaintiffs alleged that during a 1996 office building maintenance employee strike in New York City, the defendants engaged in a group boycott. This boycott purportedly blocked union members from returning to work for certain cleaning service contractors, thereby preventing plaintiffs from employing those union members. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable antitrust injury and that the non-statutory labor exemption barred the claim. The court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate antitrust injury and that the defendants' conduct was protected by the non-statutory labor exemption.

Antitrust LawGroup BoycottLabor ExemptionCollective BargainingLabor StrikeCleaning Service IndustryCommercial Real Estate MarketMotion to DismissSherman ActNon-Statutory Labor Exemption
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douds Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local Union No. 28

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against an unnamed labor organization (the respondent) under Section 10(l) of the NLRA. This action stemmed from a charge by Ferro-Co Corporation, alleging the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices under Section 8(b)(4)(A) by inducing employees of Dierks Heating Co., Inc. to refuse to handle Ferro-Co products. The court examined whether the respondent's actions constituted an illegal secondary boycott, which the legislative history of Section 8(b)(4)(A) aimed to prevent. It found no evidence of a labor dispute between the respondent and Ferro-Co (the 'secondary' employer), concluding the dispute was primarily with Dierks (the 'primary' employer). Since the circumstances did not align with the traditional concept of a secondary boycott, the court determined that equitable relief was not warranted and consequently denied the petition for injunctive relief.

Labor InjunctionSecondary BoycottNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(A)Taft-Hartley ActUnfair Labor PracticeCollective Bargaining AgreementPrimary DisputeNeutral EmployerUnion ConductTemporary Restraining Order
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weitzberg v. Dubinsky

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of covered buttons, sued several unions and a dress manufacturers' association, seeking an injunction against alleged secondary boycott and unlawful restraint of trade. They also sought a declaration that an "accessory clause" in a collective agreement was illegal. Plaintiffs, members of National Covered Button and Buckle Manufacturers Association, Inc., alleged that the unions refused to contract with them unless they rejoined a former association and threatened to put them out of business by compelling customers to cease dealings. The court found that the unions were bona fide labor organizations, exempt from General Business Law provisions regarding restraint of trade. The "accessory clause" was deemed a logical part of a collective agreement. The court also determined that enforcing the clause did not constitute an illegal secondary boycott, citing a unity of interest between the unions and the defendant association. Consequently, the motion for a temporary injunction was denied, and the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were granted.

Secondary BoycottRestraint of TradeCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeInjunctionAccessory ClauseUnionsEmployers' AssociationGeneral Business LawDismissal of Complaint
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaynard v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case addresses whether peaceful picketing, ostensibly to inform the public about substandard wages, can be enjoined as a secondary boycott or an inducement to strike in a jurisdictional dispute. The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary injunction against Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, alleging unfair labor practices after Local 25 picketed a job site where Unity Electric Co. was a subcontractor. Despite Local 25's claim that the picketing was solely informational, employees of other subcontractors refused to cross the picket lines, causing work stoppages. The court, considering Local 25's past actions and the totality of circumstances, found reasonable cause to believe that the picketing had an objective beyond mere public information, aiming to effect a secondary boycott and compel the assignment of electrical work to Local 25 members. Consequently, Local 25 was enjoined from further picketing at the Highland site pending final disposition by the Board.

Labor DisputeSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputePicketingTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesArea StandardsNational Labor Relations ActUnion ActivityConstruction Industry
References
10
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gotham Logistics, Inc. v. Local 917 International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Plaintiffs, Gotham Logistics, Inc., Bestway Services, Inc., and Bestway Logistics Transportation, Inc., trucking companies, initiated an action against Defendant Local 917 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Secretary-Treasurer under the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging an unfair labor practice and tortious interference with contract. The dispute arose after the Union negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement with SWS, an employer of the plaintiffs' services, leading SWS to hire more in-house unionized employees and consequently reducing its need for plaintiffs' external trucking services. Plaintiffs argued this constituted an unlawful secondary boycott. The court, presided over by District Judge Wexler, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the Union's actions to be lawful primary activity directed at SWS concerning its own employees, rather than an unlawful secondary boycott aimed at the plaintiffs. As the federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the entire action.

Labor Management Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary BoycottPrimary ActivityCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) FRCPTortious Interference with ContractJurisdictionTrucking Services
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local 459, International Union of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against Local 459, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. The petitioner alleged that the Union's picketing constituted unfair labor practices, specifically a secondary boycott, under Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. The dispute arose from the Union's picketing of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's premises, where Honeywell, the primary employer, had employees maintaining computers. Despite Metropolitan establishing reserved gates for neutral employers, the Union continued picketing, preventing deliveries by other companies like Mallon and Jackson. Applying the criteria from General Electric and Carrier Corporation, the Court found reasonable cause to believe a secondary boycott was occurring as the reserved gates were used only by neutral employees whose duties were unrelated to Honeywell's normal operations. Consequently, the Court granted the injunction, restraining the Union from picketing the reserved loading platforms.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottInjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeCommon Situs PicketingReserved Gate DoctrineLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesNLRB
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 38 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