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

Rentner v. Sigman

This case concerns a manufacturer's application to continue a temporary injunction against a trade union due to an ongoing strike and associated picketing. The dispute arose from disagreements over productivity and employee discharges, leading to union members picketing the manufacturer's facility in the Garment Center Capitol. While acknowledging the legality of strikes and peaceful picketing, the court found evidence of large numbers of picketers causing disorderly conduct, obstructing entrances, and interfering with the manufacturer's business and non-union employees. Judge Bijur concluded that the mass picketing constituted an unjust invasion of the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court granted a limited injunction, setting specific numerical limits for pickets at each entrance of the building to balance union's right to persuasion with plaintiff's right to conduct business freely.

injunctionlabor disputetrade unionpicketingstrikeemployer rightsemployee rightspeaceful persuasiondisorderly conducttemporary restraining order
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cee Jay Sportswear, Inc. v. Sinensky

Plaintiff, Gee Jay Sportswear, a knit goods manufacturer, sued an unnamed defendant union to enjoin picketing, interference with deliveries, and for money damages. The union began picketing plaintiff's premises, alleging that Louis Gordon, a former employee with a prior agreement with the union, was associated with the plaintiff in violation of his contract. The plaintiff contended the picketing aimed to compel recognition of the defendant union, while the defendant insisted it protested Gordon's alleged contract breach. The court found the picket signs, which claimed a 'strike', to be false and misleading as no strike was occurring. Ultimately, the court directed judgment in favor of the plaintiff, enjoining the defendant union from picketing in a manner that falsely implied a strike, but denied the broader injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff.

PicketingInjunctionLabor DisputeFalse RepresentationUnion OrganizationCollective BargainingEmployer-Employee RelationsUnfair Labor PracticesTemporary Restraining OrderContract Violation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Dressmakers Joint Council, International Ladies Garment Workers Union

This case involves a petition for a temporary injunction filed by the acting Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Dressmakers Joint Council, International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU). The NLRB sought to enjoin the union from picketing Newport Miss, Inc. (Newport) following a complaint that the union was engaging in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act. The union argued that its picketing had lawful objectives, including protesting an employee discharge and informing the public about Newport's substandard wages, and denied any current organizing interest. The court found that the Regional Director had reasonable grounds to believe the union's picketing had an unlawful objective of compelling recognition or employee union membership, causing irreparable injury to Newport and its contractors. Consequently, the court granted the temporary injunction against the union's picketing for 60 days or until the NLRB determines the merits of the pending charge.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingNational Labor Relations ActUnion OrganizingSecondary BoycottNLRB EnforcementEmployer RightsLabor Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Planet Wood Products Corp. v. Doe

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of TV tables, sought a permanent injunction against the Seafarers International Union of North America, Marine Allied Workers Division, to prevent recognition picketing. The plaintiff argued the picketing aimed to destroy an existing collective bargaining agreement with Local 48, United Industrial Unions, which it claimed was presumptively valid. The defendant union contended federal pre-emption under the Taft-Hartley Act, arguing the plaintiff's business was interstate and the contract with Local 48 was a collusive "sweetheart" agreement. The court found that the plaintiff's activities affected interstate commerce, thus establishing federal pre-emption and limiting state court jurisdiction in the absence of a proven breach of peace. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's contract with Local 48 was largely unenforced and not genuinely protecting its workers, thereby overcoming the presumption of its validity. Consequently, the defendant's picketing was deemed lawful, and the court denied the injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Labor disputeRecognition picketingFederal pre-emptionTaft-Hartley ActCollective bargaining agreementUnfair labor practicesState jurisdictionInterstate commerceInjunctive reliefContract validity
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John F. Trommer, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Brewery Workers of Greater New York, Inc.

The plaintiff, an unnamed brewery and restaurant business in Brooklyn, sought a temporary injunction against picketing by the Brotherhood of Brewery Workers of Greater New York, Inc., and its members. For over 45 years, the plaintiff maintained a closed shop with existing union contracts. The defendant brotherhood's members, permit card holders not affiliated with the plaintiff's unions, were picketing not due to a dispute with the plaintiff, but to highlight "unfairness" of the unions employing the plaintiff's workers, aiming to compel their acceptance into these unions. The court noted that while previous rulings dealt liberally with labor disputes, this case did not involve rival unions or typical labor dispute demands (wages, hours). Instead, it was an "internal, private quarrel" within a union, with pending lawsuits addressing the membership claims. The court distinguished this from situations where an innocent party must endure "incidental injury" between warring labor organizations, stating that such a policy here would weaken representative labor organizations. Therefore, the motion for a temporary injunction was granted.

Temporary injunctionPicketingLabor disputeUnion membershipInternal union quarrelFalse impressionLabor organizationsWorkplace disputeClosed shopNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zorn v. Local 662, Salesmen & Poultry Workers Union

This case involves a motion for a temporary injunction filed by Zorn’s Poultry Farms against Local 662, seeking to halt picketing activities. The plaintiff, Peter Zorn, claimed the picketing began after he refused the union's request for recognition, asserting his 17 employees were not union members. The defendants countered that their actions were peaceful and aimed at organizing employees. Given the plaintiff's intention to approach the National Labor Relations Board, the court inferred interstate commerce involvement. Citing established precedent (Dooley v. Anton), the court concluded that state courts should defer jurisdiction to the NLRB in matters concerning unfair labor practices. Consequently, the court denied the injunctive relief and vacated the previously issued stay.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnion OrganizingNLRB JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionFederal PreemptionUnfair Labor PracticesInterstate CommerceCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Luthiger v. Dudo

The plaintiff, a retail bakery owner, sought a temporary injunction to halt picketing by the defendant union after terminating three unionized employees, asserting he and his wife would operate the business solely. The union maintained that a labor dispute existed, citing the employees' union membership, their participation in a strike following collapsed contract negotiations, and the plaintiff's refusal to sign a new collective agreement. The court, applying Section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, which limits injunctions in labor disputes, analyzed relevant precedents like Thompson v. Boekhout and Baillis v. Fuchs. It concluded that a "labor dispute" was indeed present because the employees were still employed when the strike commenced. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for an injunction was denied due to his non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 876-a.

Labor disputepicketingtemporary injunctionCivil Practice Act 876-aemployer-employee relationshipunion strikecollective bargainingretail bakeryNew York lawsingle-owner business
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scharf v. Doe

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from picketing its jewelry store. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This decision was unanimously affirmed by the panel of judges.

permanent injunctioninjunction pendente litepicketinglabor disputeaffirmationmotion to dismissjewelry storeappellate court
References
0
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

Mighty Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Sinensky

Plaintiff, Mighty Knitting Mills, sought an injunction against defendant, Knitgoods Workers Union Local 155, to stop picketing its premises. Plaintiff argued the picketing was unlawful, aiming to breach its agreement with Local 138, and violated employee rights. Defendant contended its right to picket for organizational purposes and to protest plaintiff's unfair labor practice of entering into a contract with Local 138 before hiring production workers. The court found that plaintiff's contract with Local 138 likely constituted an unfair labor practice. Concluding that the dispute was a legitimate labor dispute and peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the picketing was for an unlawful purpose and dismissed the complaint.

Labor DisputePicketing InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective Bargaining AgreementOrganizational PicketingFirst Amendment RightsFourteenth Amendment RightsLabor Law ViolationsCivil Practice Act DisputeUnion Recognition
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 118 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