In re the Arbitration between International Association of Machinists, District No. 15, Local No. 402, & Cutler-Hammer, Inc.
N.Y.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2012United Teachers v. Los Angeles Unified School District Cal.
- 1999Raceway Park, Inc. v. Local 47, Service Employees International Union 6th Cir.
- 1999In re the Arbitration between Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n N.Y.
- 1991Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Cover Adams Cty. C.P.
- 1990Metropolitan Opera Ass'n v. Chairen N.Y. App. Div.
- 1986In re the Arbitration between Denihan & Denihan N.Y. App. Div.
- 1979Crescent City Lodge No. 37, International Ass'n of Machinists v. Boland Marine & Manufacturing Co. 5th Cir.
- 1978Corvallis School District 509J v. Corvallis Education Ass'n Or. Ct. App.
- 1977Jade Press, Inc. v. Packard N.Y. Civ. Ct.
- 1976Schwarzler v. Garage Employees Union Local No. 272, I.B.T. N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 1 case
- S. A. Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Arbitration between International Association of Machinists, District No. 15, Local No. 402, Appellant, and Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Respondent. In the Matter of the Arbitration between Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Respondent, and International Association of Machinists, District No. 15, Local No. 402, Appellant.
Attorneys
- Abraham Fishbein and Jerome Y. Sturm for appellant.
- J. Edward Lumbard, Jr., and Paul J. Quinn for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Thacher, and Dye, JJ.; Ftjld, J., dissents in following memorandum in which Desmond, J., concurs.
A claim may be“ so unconscionable or a defense so frivolous ’ ’ as to justify the court in refusing to order the parties to proceed to arbitration (Matter of Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, 239 N. Y. 199, 202), but I do not so regard the claim here asserted. I have difficulty in concluding, as respondent urges, that reasonable men cannot differ as to the meaning of the provision in question. While I see that as a possible construction, I do not consider it the only one. It may well be argued, and in good faith, that in the light of surrounding circumstances and of experience in the industry, and, indeed, in this very business, respondent company agreed that a bonus would be paid — at least where the company’s business warranted — and that it would discuss with the employees the amount of payment, i.e., “ payment of a bonus ”.
If there is a possibility of such a construction, the court should not remove the controversy from the sphere of arbitratian, particularly "when the applicable arbitration clause — ‘1 If any dispute shall arise * * * as to meaning, performance, non-performance or application of the provisions of this agreement ” ■ — is so broad.
In short, I think that there is something to arbitrate, and the order should be reversed.