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. 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
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
0
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. 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
26
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
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between Cortland County & CSEA, Inc.

Petitioners, Cortland County Sheriff and Cortland County, were parties to a collective bargaining agreement with an unnamed respondent union. A correction officer, Lawrence Jackson, was placed on family and medical leave due to a work restriction related to plantar fasciitis, preventing him from working mandatory overtime. The respondent union filed a grievance alleging a violation of the CBA, which petitioners denied, leading the respondent to demand arbitration. Petitioners then sought to permanently stay arbitration, but the Supreme Court denied their application and compelled arbitration. On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the dispute arbitrable as it related to the CBA's provisions on work schedules, overtime, and light-duty assignments, and no public policy considerations prohibited arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork RestrictionMandatory OvertimeDisability BenefitsPlantar FasciitisGrievanceStay of ArbitrationAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
15
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 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 Thompson & S.L.T. Ready-Mix, Division of Torrington Industries, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Supreme Court order confirming an arbitration award. The petitioner, an employee laid off during a winter slowdown, filed a grievance after workers with lower seniority were recalled. An arbitrator found the employer, the respondent, violated the collective bargaining agreement's seniority provisions and ordered the petitioner to be made whole. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. On appeal, the court affirmed the arbitrability of the dispute due to the respondent's waiver and upheld the arbitrator's authority. However, the appellate court found the damages portion of the award lacked specificity and required a rehearing before the arbitrator for a final determination of the amount. The court also denied the petitioner's claim for counsel fees.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority Rights DisputeWaiver of ArbitrabilityArbitrator's AuthorityDamages AssessmentRemittal for ClarificationConfirmation of AwardVacation of AwardCounsel Fees Denied
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,702 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