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

Rochester Club v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The petitioner, an employer, was charged with unfair labor practices by the New York State Labor Relations Board. Despite a trial examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint, the Board found unfair labor practices and ordered the matter reopened for further hearings to determine employee reinstatement and back pay. The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review this Board order, which the Board moved to dismiss as non-final. The court held that under New York Labor Law, the Board's order, granting no relief and requiring further evidence, is an interlocutory order not subject to immediate judicial review. The court distinguished this from federal practice, where similar orders may be considered final, due to differences in state and federal procedural acts. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that a final order from the Board was still pending.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticeNew York State Labor Relations BoardArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
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

New York State Labor Relations Board v. Club Transportation Corp.

This case involves an employer, Club Transportation Corp., accused of an unfair labor practice by an entity referred to as "Appellant." The accusation stemmed from the employer's requirement that former employees of Suburban Bus Co., Inc. join the Transport Workers Union of America as a condition of their new employment. The Appellant initially found this constituted an unfair labor practice, arguing it discouraged membership in the employees' former union. However, the majority opinion reversed this finding and granted the employer's application, concluding that such discrimination was permissible due to a valid pre-existing closed shop agreement between Club Transportation Corp. and the Transport Workers Union. Presiding Justice Nolan dissented, contending that the closed shop agreement, made with a properly designated representative, legally justified the employment condition under Labor Law § 704, subd. 5, and the order upholding the Appellant's initial finding should have been affirmed.

Unfair Labor PracticeClosed Shop AgreementLabor UnionCondition of EmploymentDiscriminationCollective BargainingAppellate DecisionDissenting OpinionLabor LawEmployer Employee Relations
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike an affirmative defense presented by the defendant labor union. The union argued that the plaintiffs came to court with 'unclean hands' due to their alleged refusal to bargain collectively, constituting an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, as this power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board. The court clarified that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to *prevent* unfair labor practices, the court retains its inherent equitable power to deny relief to a party with 'unclean hands'. Therefore, the court found the union's defense legally sufficient and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike.

EquityInjunctionUnclean HandsNational Labor Relations ActLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionAffirmative DefenseMotion to StrikeCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mattina v. Chinatown Carting Corp.

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) moved for a preliminary injunction against Chinatown Carting Corp. (CCC), alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act through unfair labor practices, including interrogations, threats, promises of benefits, and unlawful discharges to discourage union activity, as well as failure to bargain in good faith. Judge Marrero found reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred based on the NLRB Hearing record where CCC did not appear to rebut the allegations. The Court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering CCC to cease its unfair labor practices, recognize and bargain with the Union, provide requested information, comply with the collective bargaining agreement, and reinstate discharged employees and restore a job offer.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesPreliminary InjunctionSection 10(j)Collective Bargaining AgreementUnion MembershipEmployee RightsEmployer RetaliationReinstatementStatus Quo Ante
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2010

Mattina v. Ardsley Bus Corp.

This case involves Celeste J. Mattina, Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board, seeking temporary injunctive relief against Ardsley Bus Corp. under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. The General Counsel alleged that Ardsley engaged in unfair labor practices, including unlawfully withdrawing recognition from the Transport Workers Union and making unilateral changes to employment terms. The court reviewed the administrative record, found reasonable cause to believe Ardsley committed these unfair labor practices, and determined that temporary injunctive relief is just and proper to prevent irreparable harm and restore the status quo. The injunction requires Ardsley to cease various unfair labor practices and to bargain in good faith with the Union.

Temporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion DecertificationRefusal to BargainUnilateral ChangesEmployee RightsStatus Quo AnteInjunctive Relief
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer Ex Rel. NLRB v. P & W ELEC., INC.

The Petitioner, Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, filed an application for a temporary injunction against Respondent P & W Electric, Inc. under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, alleging unfair labor practices. The court, presided over by Judge Gershon in the Eastern District of New York, found reasonable cause to believe that P & W Electric had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging employees Michael Finn, Dane Ault, and John Kwarta due to their union organizing activities. The court determined that the requested injunctive relief, which included a cease and desist order and interim reinstatement of the three employees, was "just and proper" to preserve the pre-unfair labor practice status quo and prevent irreparable harm to the union's organizational efforts. Despite the respondent's arguments regarding employee misconduct, potential financial penalties, and alleged delay by the NLRB, the court found these insufficient to outweigh the need for injunction. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction was granted, ordering P & W Electric to cease unfair labor practices, reinstate the named employees, and post the court's order.

Temporary InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesUnion OrganizingEmployee ReinstatementCease and Desist OrderSection 10(j)Reasonable CauseJust and Proper ReliefLabor Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kentile, Inc. v. Local 457, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America

The plaintiff, Kentile, Inc., sued an unnamed labor union under the Labor Management Relations Act and other federal codes to enjoin an arbitration proceeding. The union allegedly violated the National Labor Relations Act by preventing replacement employees from joining and then demanding their discharge after a strike. A trial examiner for the National Labor Relations Board found in favor of Kentile, Inc., ruling that the union engaged in unfair labor practices. The court granted Kentile, Inc.'s motion to stay the arbitration, finding that proceeding with arbitration after the trial examiner's decision would be futile given the preliminary finding against the union. The court asserted its jurisdiction to stay arbitration, acknowledging the concurrent jurisdiction with the NLRB. The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

Labor DisputeArbitration StayUnfair Labor PracticeUnion Security ClauseEmployee RightsReplacement WorkersNational Labor Relations BoardConcurrent JurisdictionFederal CourtLabor Management Relations Act
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Water Authority v. Kramer

The Erie County Water Authority initiated an Article 78 proceeding to prevent the New York State Labor Relations Board from asserting jurisdiction over an unfair labor practice complaint. The Authority, a state agency, argued its exemption from the New York State Labor Relations Act, despite a provision in the Public Authorities Law stating it is an 'employer.' The court reviewed relevant labor and civil service laws, as well as prior case law concerning state agencies and collective bargaining. Ultimately, the court determined that the Authority, as an agency of the state, falls under the exemptions of Labor Law Section 715, thus not subject to the collective bargaining requirements of Article 20 of the Labor Law. Therefore, the application to enjoin the Board's actions was granted due to lack of jurisdiction.

Article 78Civil Practice ActPublic Authorities LawLabor LawState AgencyUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingJurisdiction DisputeErie County Water AuthorityNew York State Labor Relations Board
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 8,153 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