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 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1991

Gold v. Local Union No. 888

Leonard Gold, an employee for 29 years, was terminated by John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company following accusations of theft from a policyholder. Gold denied the allegations, attributing them to the policyholder's senility. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Local Union No. 888, UFCW-AFL-CIO, represented Gold through the grievance process but ultimately withdrew their intent to arbitrate after an allegedly inadequate investigation by union official Andre Henault. Gold filed an action alleging breach of collective bargaining agreement by the Company and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. The court denied John Hancock's motion for summary judgment, finding sufficient facts for a jury to infer the union handled Gold's grievance arbitrarily. Additionally, the court granted the union's motion to dismiss John Hancock's cross-claim, which was filed after the union settled with Gold, ruling it was barred.

duty of fair representationsummary judgmentgrievance processarbitrationcollective bargaining agreementwrongful terminationlabor lawunion settlementcross-claimfederal civil procedure
References
16
Case No. 09 Civ. 9368; 10 Civ. 4153
Regular Panel Decision

Federation of Union Representatives v. Unite Here

Plaintiff Federation of Union Representatives (FOUR), a labor union, filed actions against defendant UNITE HERE (UH) to confirm an arbitral award from May 29, 2009, and to compel UH to comply with the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The arbitral award addressed UH's violation of a collective bargaining agreement by treating automobile insurance reimbursements as taxable income. UH moved for summary judgment, contending that FOUR lacked standing because it had been decertified as the exclusive bargaining representative and replaced by the Union of Unite Here Staff (UUHS). FOUR cross-moved to compel UH to appear before the arbitrator for the limited purpose of finalizing the award. The Court, citing the National Labor Relations Act's principle of exclusive representation, determined that FOUR, as a decertified union with a successor in place, no longer had standing to enforce or confirm the award. Consequently, the Court granted UH's motions, denied FOUR's cross-motion, and dismissed both actions.

Labor LawUnion DecertificationArbitral Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementStanding to SueExclusive RepresentationSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActLabor Dispute
References
19
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

Musto v. Transport Workers Union of America

Plaintiffs, former Title II Utility Men for American Airlines, represented by TWU and Local 501, alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act. They claimed the unions breached their duty of fair representation by deliberately eliminating their jobs during negotiations in 2002, leading to layoffs, and by failing to pursue their grievances. Plaintiffs also asserted American improperly laid them off, breaching collective bargaining agreements and Letters of Understanding. The court denied the unions' motions to dismiss the fair representation claims, finding sufficient evidence of bad faith and discrimination. However, plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages against the unions were dismissed. American's motion to dismiss, arguing minor disputes and lack of collusion, was also denied, as the court found a valid hybrid claim for breach of the CBA inextricably linked to the union's fair representation breach.

Railway Labor ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLayoffsSeniority RightsContract NegotiationGrievance ProcedureStatute of LimitationsPunitive DamagesHybrid Actions
References
29
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

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Swank Associated Co.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 17, initiated an action to compel arbitration against Swank Associated Company, Inc., following a labor grievance. Swank removed the case to federal court and filed a third-party action against Local 210, arguing the matter constituted a jurisdictional dispute not subject to arbitration. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Schroeder, examined the collective bargaining agreement to determine the arbitrability of the dispute. It concluded that while an arbitrator could determine if the issue was a jurisdictional dispute, they could not resolve it on the merits if it was found to be jurisdictional. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the grievance was directed to arbitration solely to ascertain whether it constituted a jurisdictional dispute under the agreement.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementJurisdictional DisputesCollective BargainingLabor Management Relations ActFederal CourtPleadings MotionContract InterpretationArbitrabilityUnion Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 1971

McLeod v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local Union 28

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought a temporary injunction against Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 28, AFL-CIO, alleging secondary boycott and jurisdictional dispute violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The dispute arose from a construction project in New York City where the respondent union's members refused to install air-conditioning fans, claiming the associated masonry casing work belonged to them, not to bricklayers represented by another union (Bricklayers Local 34). The court found reasonable cause to believe the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by attempting to force contractors to cease business with LaSalla Mason Corporation and to reassign the plenum construction work. Citing potential irreparable injury to the general contractor Diesel Construction, the court concluded that the requested injunctive relief was just and proper. Consequently, a temporary injunction was issued to restrain the respondent's actions.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActTemporary InjunctionSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputeUnfair Labor PracticesConstruction IndustrySheet Metal WorkersBricklayers UnionContract Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 6, AFL-CIO v. State

The petitioners, unions representing ironworkers, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the New York State Commissioner of Labor. The dispute stemmed from public works contracts where Cortland Glass Company, Inc. and its subcontractor, Warren Wheeler T/A W. Wheeler Construction, paid workers as glaziers instead of the higher prevailing wages for ironworkers. While the State Bureau of Public Works initially found underpayment, a Hearing Officer and the Commissioner ultimately concluded that the work was properly classified as glaziers' work. The Appellate Division dismissed the petitioners' challenge, finding they lacked both statutory standing under Labor Law § 220 (8), as they were not parties to the administrative hearing, and common-law standing. The Court determined that the petitioners failed to demonstrate an individualized harm to any union member, which is required to establish standing on behalf of a union.

StandingCPLR Article 78Labor Law § 220Prevailing WagePublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersUnion GrievanceAdministrative ReviewJudicial Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,600 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