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

Local 342 v. Helsby

The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decision. The petitioner sought to decertify the Suffolk County Chapter of CSEA and gain certification as the exclusive negotiating representative for the Town of Smithtown's full-time blue-collar employees, advocating for a separate bargaining unit. PERB dismissed the application, affirming a long-standing history of effective negotiations for all Town of Smithtown employees, where blue-collar workers constituted a significant majority within the existing unit. The court upheld PERB's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence and that PERB appropriately considered past negotiating history under the Civil Service Law, concluding that no conflict of interest prevented effective negotiations within the current bargaining unit.

Public Employment Relations BoardPERBArticle 78 ProceedingBlue Collar EmployeesCollective Bargaining UnitDecertificationNegotiating HistoryCivil Service LawCommunity of InterestLabor Relations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. v. Service Employees International Union

Plaintiff Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) moved for summary judgment, seeking to define its job security obligations, declare defendant's interference with 'interface' illegal, and obtain a permanent injunction. Defendant Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 235 (Local 235) cross-moved for summary judgment, requesting dismissal of the complaint and an order compelling OTB to negotiate a job security agreement. The central issue revolved around whether the Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Betting Law allowed OTB to unilaterally establish job security provisions or mandated bilateral negotiation with the union. The court concluded that legislative intent and regulations (9 NYCRR 5203.5) required bilaterally negotiated agreements. Consequently, the court denied OTB's motion and granted Local 235's cross-motion, ordering OTB to negotiate a job security agreement.

Job SecurityOff-Track Betting LawPari-Mutuel BettingCollective BargainingSummary JudgmentUnion RightsStatutory InterpretationRacing and Wagering BoardLabor DisputeNegotiated Agreements
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1982

Board of Education of Dover Union Free School District v. Dover-Wingdale Teachers' Ass'n

The case concerns an appeal challenging an arbitrator's authority to set a compensatory formula for teachers facing oversized classes when a collective bargaining agreement stipulated negotiation for such issues. The Dover Union Free School District had violated class size limits for kindergarten, and subsequent negotiations with the union failed. The arbitrator, having reserved jurisdiction, issued a supplemental award for additional teacher pay. Special Term vacated this award, but the appellate court reversed, reinstating the arbitrator's decision. The court affirmed that arbitrators possess broad remedial powers to achieve a just result, even interpreting negotiation clauses to allow for monetary awards when parties cannot agree, especially in the absence of explicit contractual limitations on the arbitrator's authority.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementClass Size DisputeArbitrator AuthorityContract InterpretationRemediesNegotiation ClauseSchool DistrictTeachers' UnionAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. CA 11-01941
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2012

CITY OF OSWEGO, MTR. OF

The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed an order denying the City of Oswego's petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirming the award for the Oswego City Firefighters Association, Local 2707. The City had argued the arbitrator exceeded his authority by contravening the Retirement and Social Security Law and Civil Service Law regarding firefighter retirement contributions. The court determined that under the Triborough doctrine, the terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement remain in effect until a new agreement is negotiated. Consequently, firefighters hired after the effective date of Retirement and Social Security Law article 22 were still eligible for the previously negotiated Plan 384-d, requiring the City to pay contributions. The court clarified that applying the Section 8 exception was an interpretation of the statute, not an impermissible negotiation of retirement benefits.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingPublic Sector LaborRetirement and Social Security LawCivil Service LawTriborough DoctrineStatutory ConstructionAppellate DivisionPublic Policy ExceptionFirefighter Benefits
References
22
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

Mayor of New York v. Council of New York

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision upholding New York City Local Laws 18 and 19 (2001), which unilaterally expanded the definition of uniformed services employees to alter the scope of collective bargaining. Judge Read contends that these local laws are preempted by the statewide Taylor Law, which grants the Mayor exclusive authority over negotiating with municipal unions. The dissent highlights the historical context of New York City's collective bargaining system, established through a tripartite agreement in 1966 and subsequently codified, emphasizing that changes to this scope were traditionally negotiated, not legislated by the City Council. The opinion asserts that the Council's actions infringe upon the Mayor's management rights and exceed its legislative authority under Civil Service Law § 212, which only permits local legislation in specific areas like representation status or impasse procedures. Judge Read warns that the decision destabilizes long-settled labor relations and allows the Council to act as an unauthorized negotiator.

Taylor LawCollective BargainingPublic Sector Labor RelationsLocal Law PreemptionNew York City Administrative CodeMunicipal UnionsCivil Service LawExecutive OrdersLegislative AuthorityManagement Rights
References
2
Case No. ADJ3835561 (GOL 0099475)
Regular
Jul 12, 2011

CESAR HERNANDEZ vs. J.D. HUMANN LANDSCAPING, INC., NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order setting aside a compromise and release, alleging the order was ex-parte and issued without notice. However, the defendant later withdrew its petition, explaining it was unaware of lien claimant correspondence and had since negotiated a resolution for attorney fees. The Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and remanded the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This action allows for reinstatement of the original compromise and release and approval of the negotiated stipulation for attorney fees.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Setting Aside Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseEx-parteLien ClaimantEstate of Michael StevensStipulation and AwardAttorney FeesRemandTrial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ7712746
Regular
Dec 08, 2015

Glen Rizuto vs. United Parcel Service, Gallagher Bassett

The Appeals Board granted UPS's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to negotiate a QME selection. The Board found the WCJ erred by not addressing UPS's contentions regarding the validity of the second QME panel issued over 24 months after the first. UPS successfully argued they would be prejudiced if forced to negotiate when the second panel was allegedly the only valid one. The Board ordered parties to select a QME from the July 2, 2014 panel, allowing each to strike one name.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel SelectionCumulative Trauma InjuryLabor Code Section 4062.1Labor Code Section 4062.2Romero v. Costco WholesaleIrreparable HarmPrejudiceMedical Unit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keane

The case concerns an appeal regarding unemployment benefits for workers laid off by their employer during peaceful union contract negotiations. The employer, apprehending a potential strike, laid off workers, but the union negotiations proceeded without incident and ultimately resulted in a new contract. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that no strike, lockout, or industrial controversy occurred, thus entitling the claimants to benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that peaceful collective bargaining is not an 'industrial controversy' under Labor Law § 592(1), and therefore the employees' unemployment was not disqualifying.

Unemployment BenefitsIndustrial ControversyLabor DisputeStrikeLockoutContract NegotiationsUnionLayoffsLabor LawAppellate Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morrin v. Structural Steel Board of Trade, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by the defendant from an injunction that prohibited the employment of individuals not part of the plaintiff's union. The plaintiff's claim was based on an alleged, unsigned contract, asserting that the defendant's representative had agreed to its terms. The defendant, however, contended that its representative was only authorized to negotiate and not to finalize an agreement, and furthermore, that the submitted agreement deviated from the authorized negotiation parameters. Citing sharp factual disputes in the record, the court ruled that an injunction pendente lite was unwarranted and should not have been issued. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the motion was denied, emphasizing that the rights of the parties should be determined after a full trial.

injunctionemployment lawunion contractappellate reviewcontract negotiationfactual disputependente litelabor disputereversed decisionmotion denied
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 188 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