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 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

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

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Insurance v. Ebin

The petitioner sought to renew and reconsider a prior motion to stay arbitration of a no-fault insurance claim. The court had previously determined that threshold issues concerning conditions precedent for no-fault recovery fall under arbitration, not judicial review, citing broad arbitration provisions in the Insurance Law. Petitioner contended non-compliance with notice requirements and an unconstitutional deprivation of contractual and property rights. The court upheld its original decision, finding the arbitration provisions reasonable and consistent with the no-fault law's goal of reducing court congestion, with due process rights protected by CPLR 7511. The motion to renew and reconsider was granted, but the denial of the motion to stay arbitration was adhered to.

ArbitrationNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessPolice PowerContractual RightsProperty RightsJudicial ReviewCPLR

References

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 14, 1960

In re the Arbitration between Luggage Workers Union, Local 60, ILGP & NWU & Major Moulders, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a motion to stay arbitration. The appellant and the union had an initial agreement stating they would enter into a full-length collective bargaining agreement, which would include arbitration provisions. However, this subsequent agreement was never signed. The union sought arbitration under this unconsummated agreement, leading the defendant (appellant) to file a motion to stay arbitration. The initial order denying this motion was reversed on appeal, with the court granting the motion to stay arbitration. The court found that without a binding collective agreement, there was no effective commitment by the parties to arbitrate.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract LawMotion to StayAppellate ReviewLabor DisputeUnconsummated AgreementLack of Arbitration ClauseDenial ReversedCosts and Disbursements

References

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

Case No. 95 CIV. 0004 (LMM)

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between Standard Tallow Corp. & Kil-Management A/S

The petitioner sought to compel arbitration in New York City concerning damages to goods shipped by the respondent from New York to Barcelona, Spain. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties which contained two conflicting arbitration clauses: one in Part I mandating arbitration in London, and another in Part II requiring arbitration in New York. The court, presided over by District Judge Motley, interpreted the contract, specifically a preamble stating that Part I provisions prevail over Part II in case of conflict, and also considered that the London clause was in the "typewritten" portion of the agreement, which typically holds precedence. Citing federal contract law and similar maritime contract cases, the court concluded that the London arbitration clause controls the location of arbitration. Consequently, the petition to compel arbitration in New York was denied, although no order was issued to compel arbitration in London as the respondent did not file a cross-petition.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActChoice of ForumMaritime LawConflicting ClausesContractual PrecedenceLondon ArbitrationNew York ArbitrationJudicial Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Stewart Stamping Corp. & Uprichard

This case addresses a motion to stay arbitration. The respondent, a local labor union, intended to arbitrate disputes with an employer under a collective bargaining agreement. However, the union had previously engaged in picketing and a strike against the employer, actions explicitly prohibited by the agreement which also provided for arbitration as a dispute resolution method. The employer had successfully sued the union to restrain the picketing, obtaining a temporary injunction that was later affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court deemed it inequitable to allow the union to pursue arbitration while simultaneously disregarding other express provisions of the agreement through striking and picketing. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration was granted.

Arbitration stayLabor union disputeCollective bargaining agreementStrike actionPicketingContractual waiverInjunction affirmedEquitable reliefCivil Practice ActDispute resolution

References

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

Showing 1-10 of 4,803 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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 Guilderland Central School District & Guiilderland Central Teachers Ass'n

ArbitrationGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementEducation LawMilitary Service AllowanceTimelinessProcedural ArbitrabilityConditions PrecedentWaiverSchool District

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Cluett, Peabody & Co. & Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

ArbitrationEmployment PracticesContractual RelationshipSubsidiaryUnion AgreementWork DiversionMotion DeniedInterpretation of Contract

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Arbitration AgreementContract FormationChoice of LawUniform Commercial CodeInternational TradeGrain SaleTelex ConfirmationNAEGA ContractMaterial AlterationSeparability Doctrine

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Insurance v. Ebin

ArbitrationNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessPolice PowerContractual RightsProperty RightsJudicial ReviewCPLR

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Law of the CaseLabor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementRetroactive ReliefArbitrator's PowerCommission DeductionsUnconscionabilityFederal Labor LawGrievance ProcedureInterest Award

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 14, 1960

In re the Arbitration between Luggage Workers Union, Local 60, ILGP & NWU & Major Moulders, Inc.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract LawMotion to StayAppellate ReviewLabor DisputeUnconsummated AgreementLack of Arbitration ClauseDenial ReversedCosts and Disbursements

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Fitzgerald & General Electric Co.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingManagement PrerogativeArbitrabilityScope of Arbitration ClauseContract InterpretationUnion RecognitionCourt's Role in ArbitrationLabor Dispute

References

Case No. 95 CIV. 0004 (LMM)

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between Standard Tallow Corp. & Kil-Management A/S

ArbitrationContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActChoice of ForumMaritime LawConflicting ClausesContractual PrecedenceLondon ArbitrationNew York ArbitrationJudicial Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Stewart Stamping Corp. & Uprichard

Arbitration stayLabor union disputeCollective bargaining agreementStrike actionPicketingContractual waiverInjunction affirmedEquitable reliefCivil Practice ActDispute resolution

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Reif & Williams Sportswear, Inc.

References

Showing 1-10 of 4,803 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.