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

In re the Arbitration between I. Miller & Sons, Inc., & United Office & Professional Workers

This case involves a motion to stay arbitration filed by petitioners, who are employees of I. Miller & Sons, Inc. The petitioners sought to stay an arbitration proceeding between their employer and a respondent union. The union and employer had an agreement requiring new employees to join the union after thirty days as a condition of employment. The petitioners refused to join the union, and the employer declined the union's request to discharge them, citing the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Law). The petitioners argued the agreement was invalid under the Taft-Hartley Act and they had no obligation to arbitrate. The court denied the motion to stay arbitration, ruling that the petitioners, not being parties to the arbitration agreement, lacked standing to interfere with the proceeding. The court clarified that the phrase 'any party to the controversy' in the Civil Practice Act sections 1462 and 1462-a refers to parties to the arbitration agreement itself.

Arbitration AgreementStandingThird-Party RightsLabor LawUnion MembershipEmployer ObligationsContract InterpretationMotion to StayCivil Practice ActTaft-Hartley Act
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Wagner & Russeks Fifth Avenue, Inc.

The court denied a motion to confirm an arbitration award due to improper acknowledgment under Civil Practice Act § 1460. The respondent's cross-motion to vacate the award was granted. While arguments regarding exhausted arbitrator powers and excessive damages were rejected, the court found the arbitrator guilty of "misbehavior" under Civil Practice Act § 1462(3) due to an unreasonable delay in rendering the decision. This delay, from March 3 to August 20, 1948, prejudiced the employer by awarding substantial back pay to a rightfully discharged employee for a period largely covered by the arbitrator's inaction. The matter was remitted to the arbitrator for a rehearing to reassess back pay, which should not extend beyond the date a prompt decision was due.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationAward VacaturCivil Practice ActArbitrator MisconductUndue DelayLabor AgreementBack PayDeed AcknowledgmentReal Property Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Stowe & Aircooled Motors, Inc.

This case involves a motion to compel arbitration under section 1450 of the Civil Practice Act, related to the discharge of Gerald Mersfelder. A cross-motion was filed to dismiss the application. The court addressed preliminary objections regarding the local union's standing as a contracting party, affirming its involvement. It was determined that the arbitration clause was limited and did not cover all disputes, particularly unfair labor practices which fall under the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction. The court also considered its own jurisdiction under the Civil Practice Act, noting that the controversy arose before amendments broadening the scope of arbitrable subjects took effect. Ultimately, the court found no basis for arbitration as the grievance did not involve the interpretation or application of the contract's provisions.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJurisdictionCivil Practice ActMotion to CompelMotion to DismissUnion RightsContract Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Frederick A. Baker & Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, C.I.O.

This case concerns a motion filed by employers (movants) to stay an arbitration initiated by the Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, O.I.O. The dispute arose from the movants' refusal to contribute to the Local 65 insurance fund, as mandated by an August 1947 agreement, citing the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act). The movants argued that their contributions were unlawful under Section 302 of the Act due to the fund's lack of equal employer-employee representation. However, the court ruled that Section 302(g) exempts trust funds established before January 1, 1946, from this joint administration requirement. Since the union's fund was established in August 1945, it qualified for the exemption, irrespective of when individual employers began contributing. Consequently, the court denied the motion to stay arbitration.

Taft-Hartley ActLabor Management Relations ActUnion Welfare FundsTrust FundsEmployer ContributionsArbitration StayCollective Bargaining AgreementStatutory ExemptionJoint AdministrationLabor Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Local 365 & Agricultural Implement Workers of America

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which directed the parties to proceed to arbitration and permitted J. Kenneth O’Connor, Esq., to act as attorney for the petitioner union. The appellate court modified the order by limiting arbitration to the issue of whether a supervisory employee, Clarence Martin, could return to the bargaining unit, based on the interpretation of Article X (subd 5, par [a]) of the agreement. The part of the order allowing J. Kenneth O’Connor to serve as attorney was deleted as his representation was withdrawn. The court also held that the dispute regarding union members' severance pay was non-arbitrable due to the National Labor Relations Board's sole jurisdiction over unfair labor practice allegations, specifically citing violations of sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act.

ArbitrationLabor LawNLRB JurisdictionCollective Bargaining AgreementSeverance PaySupervisory EmployeesBargaining UnitUnfair Labor PracticesLMRAContract Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Fitzgerald & General Electric Co.

This case involves a petition to compel arbitration stemming from a dispute where the respondent opted to subcontract janitorial services instead of using its own employees, a decision challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the dispute fell under an arbitration clause in their collective bargaining agreement, specifically citing the 'Union Recognition' article. However, the court found that the dispute did not involve the interpretation or application of any agreement provision, noting that the subcontracting issue had been explicitly rejected during agreement negotiations. The court also clarified that Civil Practice Act section 1448-a, while precluding inquiry into the merits of a dispute, does not divest the court of its role to determine the scope of an arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the agreement itself stipulated that arbitration could only proceed after a court determined the arbitrability of issues, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingManagement PrerogativeArbitrabilityScope of Arbitration ClauseContract InterpretationUnion RecognitionCourt's Role in ArbitrationLabor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dalcro Corp. & International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

Three applications were submitted to the court regarding an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement. Employer Dalcro Corp. moved to stay arbitration and to vacate an arbitrator's award, while the Union moved to confirm the award. The dispute arose from an alleged oral modification of wage rates. Dalcro claimed the arbitration agreement was invalid, there was no arbitrable issue, and the National Labor Relations Board had pre-empted jurisdiction. The court denied Dalcro's application for a stay, finding that Dalcro had participated in the arbitration proceedings. However, the court granted Dalcro's application to vacate the arbitrator's award because the arbitrator failed to adjourn the hearing as mandated by Civil Practice Act § 1458 after being served with a motion for a stay. Consequently, the Union's application to confirm the award was denied, and a rehearing before the arbitrator was directed.

Arbitration AgreementCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardArbitration StayVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardDue ProcessJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Kyne & Molfetas

This case involves an appeal from an order confirming an arbitration award, which was subsequently reversed and remanded to Special Term. The court mandated a hearing to determine two critical aspects: first, whether the arbitration contract was formed between the petitioner labor union and the respondent as an individual or on behalf of a corporate entity; and second, whether the respondent received due notice of the arbitration. The decision emphasizes that the court, not the arbitrator, must decide on the existence of a valid contract and proper notice. Furthermore, even if these conditions are met, the matter must be remanded to the arbitrator to clarify the ambiguity of the award, which directed payments to unidentified individuals, rendering it imperfectly executed and not a final and definite award as required by the Civil Practice Act.

ArbitrationContract ExistenceNotice RequirementAmbiguity in AwardRemandSpecial TermLabor UnionRespondent IdentityCivil Practice ActProcedural Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Reif & Williams Sportswear, Inc.

This case addresses whether a corporation is bound by an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement ratified by its predecessor partnership. The petitioner, Local 169 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, initiated arbitration against the respondent, Williams Sportswear Co., Inc., for defaulting on payments to employee funds. The corporation, formed by the same partners who ran the predecessor partnership, continued the same business in the same location and sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was not a party to the agreement. While the Special Term denied the stay, the Appellate Division reversed, absolving the corporation of the obligation. The higher court, however, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the corporation acts as an 'alter ego' of the original promoters and is thus bound by the collective bargaining agreement, emphasizing that a change in corporate form does not negate pre-existing contractual obligations when the underlying business remains unchanged. Therefore, arbitration was deemed enforceable.

Arbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining AgreementCorporate LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSuccessor EmployerStay of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionCorporate FormationContractual ObligationsUnion Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rosenblum & Burton Manufacturing Co.

The case involves a dispute submitted to arbitration regarding a claim that the respondent, Burton, violated a collective bargaining agreement by utilizing non-union contractors for garment manufacturing. The arbitration produced a partial award, which the court determined was not a final award on the subject matter because it did not dispose of all violations for the period involved and allowed the petitioner to establish additional violations later. Citing Civil Practice Act, Sections 1463 and 1462, subdivision 4, the court ruled that a partial award is not permissible. Consequently, the motion to confirm the award was denied, the award was vacated, and the matter was remitted back to the arbitrator for further proceedings.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementcontract violationpartial awardaward confirmation deniedaward vacatedremitted to arbitratorunion contractorslabor lawcivil practice act
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,225 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