Consolidated Carting Corp. v. Local No. 282, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America

• Decision Date: 15 June 1967
• Citation: 280 N.Y.S.2d 872,28 A.D.2d 667
• Parties: , 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3069, 56 Lab.Cas. P 51,738 In the Matter of the Arbitration Between CONSOLIDATED CARTING CORPORATION, Petitioner-Respondent, and LOCAL NO. 282, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 872

280 N.Y.S.2d 872

28 A.D.2d 667, 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3069,

56 Lab.Cas. P 51,738

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between CONSOLIDATED

CARTING CORPORATION, Petitioner-Respondent,

and

LOCAL NO. 282, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,

CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1967.

W. J. Calise, New York City, for petitioner-respondent.

J. Last, New York City, for respondent-appellant.

Before STEUER, J.P., and CAPOZZOLI, TILZER, RABIN and mCGIVERN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order entered February 17, 1967, referring the issue of the arbitrator's authority to Trial Term for a hearing unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, by vacating the direction for a hearing and vacating the award, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant.

The parties entered into a collective bargaining agreement which contains two provisions for arbitration. Section 6 of the contract provides for the use of defendant's trucks and for possible loss of work to the drivers resulting from repairs to or sale of those trucks. Any dispute under this provision is to be arbitrated before a named Impartial Arbitrator. All other disputes are to be arbitrated by arbitrators named by specified agencies. Respondent union made a demand for arbitration pursuant to Section 6. Petitioner requested a specification of the nature of the dispute, but none was forthcoming. Upon the arbitration it appeared that the union was contesting the assignment of drivers belonging to another union to certain trucks. As soon as this became apparent, respondent protested the jurisdiction of the Impartial Arbitrator, as the dispute was not a matter arising under Section 6. The arbitrator reserved decision, and it was not until announcement of his decision that respondent learned that the Impartial Arbitrator had determined issues outside his jurisdiction.

We agree with Special Term that petitioner was not precluded from raising the question of the arbitrator's jurisdiction by participating in the arbitration. It would be otherwise if the participation were had knowingly, that is, if petitioner was aware of the matters proposed to be arbitrated and failed to avail himself of the designated procedures (Mtr. of Nat. Cash Register Co. (Wilson), 8 N.Y.2d 377, 208 N.Y.S.2d 951, 171 N.E.2d 302) or agreed to submit to the arbitrator the question of his jurisdiction (Mtr. of Kessler ...