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

Stalban v. Friedman

This Per Curiam decision addresses a labor dispute where the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendant unions, despite the union members not being directly employed by the plaintiff. The court determined that a labor dispute, as defined by Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, subd. 10, was indeed involved. Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove facts mandated by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, injunctive relief could not be granted. The decision emphasizes that the ruling of the State Labor Relations Board regarding collective bargaining agency did not influence this outcome. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed with costs.

Labor Dispute LawInjunctive Relief DeniedCivil Practice Act § 876-aPleading SufficiencyCollective Bargaining IssuesUnion MembershipAppellate ReversalComplaint DismissalCourt Costs AwardedPer Curiam Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laborers Local 91, Laborers International Union v. Building Industry Employers Ass'n

Plaintiff Laborers Local 91 sought to compel arbitration against defendants Building Industry Employers Association and Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc. concerning a work assignment dispute involving Iron Workers Local 9. Laborers Local 91 alleged a violation of its collective bargaining agreement when Higgins assigned work to Iron Workers Local 9. After resolution attempts via the Impartial Jurisdictional Dispute Board (IJDB) and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service failed, Laborers Local 91 initiated this action under the Labor Management Relations Act and the United States Arbitration Act. The court had previously ordered Iron Workers Local 9 to be joined as a defendant. Currently, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the court denies without prejudice due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the exclusivity of the IJDB forum, the Plan's intended preclusion of other remedies, and whether Iron Workers Local 9's agreement bars arbitration.

jurisdictional disputecollective bargaining agreementarbitrationsummary judgmentlabor management relations actunion disputework assignmenttripartite arbitrationImpartial Jurisdictional Dispute Boardfederal labor law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Flavin

The plaintiff, a union member who worked during a strike, sued the defendant, president of Local 1170, Communications Workers of America, for libel. The suit stemmed from a flyer circulated by the defendant that characterized the plaintiff as a "scab" and included a definition attributed to Jack London. Special Term granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, ruling the term "scab" was not libelous as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed, citing federal pre-emption of state libel actions in labor disputes, as established in Linn v Plant Guard Workers and Letter Carriers v Austin. The court held that the use of "scab" and its definition, while insulting, is protected under federal labor law as figurative speech common in such disputes. The court also noted a qualified privilege for communications among union members. However, the issue of other potentially defamatory statements being made with actual malice was remanded for a triable issue of fact.

LibelDefamationLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentFreedom of SpeechNLRA Section 7Scab EpithetQualified Privilege
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolchak v. Wiseman

This case concerns a labor dispute between two rival unions in New York. The plaintiff, Retail Dairy, Grocery and Fruit Clerks’ Union, Local 338 (AFL-affiliated), sued the defendant, Food Workers’ Industrial Union of New York (affiliated with the Trade Union Unity League and Red International of Labor Unions), for unlawful picketing, violence, and intimidation. The defendants targeted shops that had collective bargaining agreements with the plaintiff, employing deceptive signs, smashing windows, throwing stench bombs, and assaulting members of the plaintiff union and merchants. A temporary injunction was issued to stop these activities, but the defendants flagrantly violated it. The court noted the defendants' disregard for legal principles and their affiliations with radical labor organizations. Consequently, the court decided to make the temporary injunction permanent, affirming that such unlawful acts would not be tolerated.

Union disputeLabor injunctionPicketing violenceTrade union lawCollective bargaining agreementsWorker intimidationAFLCommunist affiliationsCourt order violationNew York labor relations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chesterfield Associates v. New York State Department of Labor

This case addresses Chesterfield Associates' challenge to the New York Department of Labor's 'annualization' rule (12 NYCRR 220.2 [d]), used to assess compliance with the prevailing wage law (Labor Law art 8) on public projects. Chesterfield disputed the annualization of its profit-sharing pension contributions made on behalf of employees who worked on public projects in Nassau and Suffolk counties between 1994 and 1997. The annualization rule calculates an hourly cash equivalent of benefits by dividing total contributions by total annual hours worked (both public and private). Chesterfield argued this methodology effectively penalized contractors by demanding prevailing rates for private work or forcing cash supplements. The Commissioner of Labor, whose decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, determined that annualization was a reasonable method to value fringe benefits, prevent cost-shifting, and ensure fair competition among contractors.

Prevailing Wage LawAnnualization RuleLabor Law § 220Fringe BenefitsPension ContributionsPublic Works ProjectsContractor ComplianceProfit-Sharing PlanJudicial ReviewAdministrative Deference
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Micamold Radio Corp. v. Beedie

This case addresses a plaintiff's request for an injunction in a labor dispute. The court examined the retroactive application and constitutionality of Chapter 477 of the Laws of 1935, which amended the Civil Practice Act by adding section 876-a, outlining specific conditions for issuing injunctions in such disputes. The new law imposes rigorous requirements, including findings of unlawful acts, irreparable injury, and a lack of adequate public protection. After reviewing various legal precedents on statutory retroactivity, the court determined that the 1935 statute affects substantive rights, not merely procedural forms. Consequently, the court concluded that the law cannot be applied retroactively to the plaintiff's pre-existing cause of action, thus ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

injunctionlabor disputestatutory interpretationretroactivityCivil Practice ActSection 876-aequitable reliefsubstantive lawprocedural lawworker rights
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaynard v. Transport Workers Union

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary injunction against the Transport Workers Union of America (T.W.U.) and Local 504 for alleged unfair labor practices involving a proscribed strike against Triangle Maintenance Corporation due to a jurisdictional dispute. The dispute arose when Triangle, a new cleaning contractor at John F. Kennedy Airport, planned to replace existing T.W.U. represented cleaning workers with a new crew under a different union (32B, which later disclaimed the work). The T.W.U. encouraged a strike to retain jobs for its members. The court, presided over by District Judge Weinstein, denied the injunction, reasoning that the dispute was a traditional economic struggle to retain jobs, not a jurisdictional dispute as defined by section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, especially since there was no conflict between rival unions claiming the same work at the time the picketing began.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActJurisdictional DisputeUnfair Labor PracticesTemporary InjunctionStrike ActionEconomic DisputeEmployer-Union RelationsCollective BargainingWork Assignment Dispute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santo v. Laborers' International Union

This case addresses a dispute between union members and their labor organizations concerning a dues increase implemented during a trusteeship. Plaintiffs challenged the unilateral dues increase by a trustee under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the union's constitution. The court found that the trustee's action violated the LMRDA's provision requiring member participation in dues decisions, even under a trusteeship. However, the claim based on the union constitution was dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the LMRDA claim and to the defendants on the union constitution claim, leaving the issue of damages unresolved.

LMRDAUnion DuesTrusteeshipLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentExhaustion of RemediesUnion ConstitutionVoting RightsDemocratic GovernanceLabor Unions
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrand Optical Co. v. Local 475, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

The plaintiff, a New York corporation engaged in manufacturing optical goods for the U.S. Air Force, sought a preliminary injunction against an unincorporated labor organization representing its employees. The dispute stemmed from a strike in May 1956, despite a no-strike clause in an existing collective bargaining agreement. A subsequent agreement on July 6, 1956, aimed to resolve the issues, but the defendant union argued it was conditional on employee ratification and compliance with a return-to-work clause, neither of which occurred. The court determined the July 6th agreement was binding and that the ongoing situation did not constitute a 'labor dispute' under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, thus granting the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. This injunction prohibits the defendant from misrepresenting a strike or labor dispute, picketing under such pretext, and violating the July 6th agreement, but does not compel employees to return to work.

Labor LawInjunctionCollective BargainingStrikeNorris-LaGuardia ActTaft-Hartley ActContract DisputeFederal Court JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionRatification
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 12,334 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