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 Cluett, Peabody & Co. & Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Petitioner moves to stay arbitration, contending there is no contractual relationship requiring arbitration of disputes arising from Bud Berman's employment practices. The dispute centers on an agreement clause stating the employer shall not hire contractors to manufacture garments unless its own factories are supplied with work and the contractor is in a contractual relationship with the Union. It is asserted that the company's factories are working part-time while contracting operations are indirectly accomplished, allegedly violating the agreement. The court determined that whether the company purposefully diverted manufacturing and contract operations through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bud Berman, constitutes an arbitrable issue concerning contractual meanings and breach. Therefore, the motion to stay arbitration is denied.

ArbitrationEmployment PracticesContractual RelationshipSubsidiaryUnion AgreementWork DiversionMotion DeniedInterpretation of Contract
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Guilderland Central School District & Guiilderland Central Teachers Ass'n

The underlying dispute involves a school district (petitioner) challenging an arbitration demand initiated by teachers (individual respondents) and their union (respondent). The demand concerned military service allowances as per a collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner sought to stay arbitration, arguing non-compliance with the agreement's time provisions and Education Law § 3813. The court ruled that the detailed contractual grievance procedures indicated an intent to waive Education Law § 3813's applicability. It further held that questions regarding contractual time limitations and procedural arbitrability are for the arbitrators to decide, not the court, especially when not explicitly made conditions precedent to arbitration. Therefore, the order to affirm the underlying decision was passed.

ArbitrationGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementEducation LawMilitary Service AllowanceTimelinessProcedural ArbitrabilityConditions PrecedentWaiverSchool District
References
16
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 Board of Higher Education & Professional Staff Congress/CUNY

This case addresses a petition to stay arbitration initiated by a petitioner against a respondent, representing Sandra Davis and Luis Rodriquez-Abad. The grievants, non-reappointed instructional staff at CUNY (Hunter College), sought arbitration alleging discrimination. The petitioner refused to process these grievances, citing a collective bargaining agreement clause (Section 20.7) that precludes arbitration for discrimination claims if a party has filed a claim in court or with a governmental agency. Sandra Davis had filed a Title VII lawsuit, and Luis Rodriquez-Abad had filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. The court, referencing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., ruled that while statutory rights cannot be prospectively waived, the contractual right to arbitration can be waived if a superior forum is chosen. Consequently, the court granted the petition to stay arbitration of the discrimination claim, allowing other claims to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationNonreappointmentTenureGrievance ProcedureTitle VIICivil Rights ActExecutive Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re of the Arbitration between Town of Evans & International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition to stay arbitration, granted respondent's counterclaim to compel arbitration, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees and sanctions. The petitioner had terminated an accountant, Elmar Kiefer, for alleged sexual abuse and misuse of resources. Respondent filed a grievance on Kiefer's behalf, leading to a demand for arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was against public policy as an arbitrator might reinstate Kiefer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the public policy argument was premature and that courts should not pre-emptively assume an arbitrator will exceed their powers or violate public policy. The court also denied attorney's fees and sanctions for both parties.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementSexual HarassmentMisconductAttorney's FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewGrievanceEmployment Termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Ass'n of Uptown Converters, Inc. & Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union

This case concerns an application for an injunction to stay action related to the designation of employer representatives for a security fund. The fund, contributed to by employers in contractual relations with Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65, provides employee benefits. Following the Taft-Hartley Law, which mandates equal representation in fund administration, trustees devised an election method for employer representatives. The petitioner employer association, dissatisfied with this method, demanded arbitration. The petitioner sought an injunction to halt the election process until arbitration concluded. The court, presided by Pecora, J., denied the application, citing a lack of legal warrant for such a procedure in a special arbitration proceeding and finding no irreparable injury would result from the election proceeding.

labour lawinjunctionarbitrationTaft-Hartley Actemployee benefitssecurity fundunion administrationemployer representationCivil Practice Actprocedural law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between I. S. Joseph Co. & Toufic Aris & Fils

The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment dismissing Joseph's petition to stay arbitration and granting Toufic's cross-petition to compel arbitration, concurrently vacating an earlier stay pending appeal. The dispute arose from an oral grain sale agreement between Joseph, a Minnesota seller, and Toufic, a buyer from France and Lebanon, where both parties exchanged telex confirmations that largely agreed but had minor differences, and crucially incorporated a North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) contract containing a broad arbitration clause enforceable in New York. The court determined that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, asserting that New York law governed the arbitration provision due to its significant contacts, irrespective of the performance location. The majority opinion found the arbitration agreement valid, with some justices viewing it as part of a valid sales contract under UCC 2-207(2)(b), while others deemed the arbitration clause separable. Justice Nunez dissented, arguing for a remand to ascertain the validity of the underlying sales agreement, highlighting telex discrepancies and the non-execution of a formal contract as crucial factors impacting the arbitration agreement's existence.

Arbitration AgreementContract FormationChoice of LawUniform Commercial CodeInternational TradeGrain SaleTelex ConfirmationNAEGA ContractMaterial AlterationSeparability Doctrine
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1976

In re the Arbitration between S. M. Rose Corp., & Meyers

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed a judgment denying the employer's application to stay arbitration and granting the union's cross-petition to compel arbitration. The court emphasized the strong federal and state policy favoring arbitration for labor disputes. It ruled that the employer's objections, including those related to subcontracting and consulting employees on repair estimates, were arbitrable as per CPLR 7501, which states courts should not consider the merits of a claim when deciding arbitrability. The court also dismissed the employer's antitrust argument, finding no prima facie showing that the union's proposals would violate antitrust laws.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingAntitrust LawArbitrabilityCPLR 7501Court of AppealsAppellate DivisionSupreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dworkes & Chalek

This case involves an application by a petitioner to stay arbitration against respondent Chalek, stemming from disputes related to a partnership agreement dated July 18, 1961. The partnership agreement includes an arbitration clause for controversies arising out of the contract. The petitioner argued that the disputes were not subject to arbitration due to unambiguous terms, lack of explicit arbitrator permission for interpretation, and the improper inclusion of an agreement without an arbitration clause. The court found the petitioner's contentions without merit, affirming that while the court determines if an arbitrable dispute exists, the interpretation of a broadly agreed-upon arbitration clause is for the arbitrators. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration was denied, the petition dismissed, and the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationPartnership DisputeStay of ArbitrationMotion DeniedArbitrabilityScope of ArbitrationAmerican Arbitration AssociationDispute ResolutionJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Local 345 of the Retail Store Employees Union & Heinrich Motors, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by an automobile dealership, Heinrich Motors, Inc., against a labor arbitration award concerning improper deductions from salesmen's commissions. The arbitrator found that the employer was violating the collective bargaining agreement by deducting a $25 advertising charge from gross profit before calculating commissions. The main dispute centered on the arbitrator's power to award retroactive repayment of withheld commissions back to September 1977, despite a contractual provision limiting retroactive relief to the date the grievance was filed (June 28, 1979). The court previously remitted the case, asking the arbitrator to justify exceeding the contractual limitation. In his supplemental opinion, the arbitrator found it unconscionable to apply the limitation and deprive employees of commissions withheld before June 28, 1979, citing the intent for peaceful resolution through arbitration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term's confirmation of the supplemental award, holding that the "law of the case" doctrine applies and that the arbitrator's actions were within his powers under Federal labor law. The court also modified the judgment to award interest from the date of the arbitrator's supplemental award (June 18, 1981) instead of the confirmation date (November 20, 1981).

Law of the CaseLabor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementRetroactive ReliefArbitrator's PowerCommission DeductionsUnconscionabilityFederal Labor LawGrievance ProcedureInterest Award
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 2,940 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