Hudson Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Allied Trades Council Of Americn Fed'n Of Labor.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 158/495.,158/495. |
| Parties | HUDSON WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. v. ALLIED TRADES COUNCIL OF AMERICN FEDERATION OF LABOR. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Hudson Wholesale Grocery Company against Allied Trades Council of the American Federation of Labor for rescission of employer-employee agreement entered into between the parties on grounds of fraud and duress in making of the agreement and for injunction against defendant from proceeding with arbitration in accordance with arbitration provisions of the agreement. On defendant's motion to dismiss complaint or for a stay of present proceedings until after arbitration in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2:40-14.
Proceeding stayed in order that judgment may be entered in pursuance of the arbitrator's awardPesin & Pesin, of Jersey City (Thomas J. Brogan, of Jersey City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Harold Krieger, of Jersey City for defendant.
This is a motion by the defendant to dismiss the complaint filed in this cause upon the following grounds:
(1) The complaint fails to set forth a cause of action.
(2) This court has no jurisdiction in that the sole remedy is arbitration.
(3) An adequate remedy at law exists; to wit, arbitration.
(4) Res adjudicata, in that the Hudson County Circuit Court has heretofore rendered a decision that the matter proceed to arbitration.
In the event of a denial of the foregoing, the defendant moves for a stay of these proceedings until after arbitration, in accordance with R.S. 2:40-14, N.J.S.A.
The complaint herein seeks rescission of an employer-employee agreement entered into between the parties on December 20, 1946 on the grounds of fraud and duress in the making of the agreement. The complaint also seeks an injunction against the defendant from proceeding with arbitration in accordance with the arbitration provisions of the agreement. The plaintiff's alleged right to the injunction is predicated upon the defendant's action through its members, the plaintiff's employees, in repudiating the contract by violating the “no-strike clause” thereof. The plaintiff contends that such action on the part of the defendant so materially breached the contract that said defendant cannot now rely on the arbitration provisions therein contained and that the plaintiff upon such breach was entitled to and did terminate the agreement.
The issue of fraud and duress in the making of the agreement has already been decided against the plaintiff.
There is no question as to the propriety of the present motion. It is addressed to the jurisdiction of the court. See, Rule 3:12-8; McGarvey v. Young, 100 N.J.Eq.174, 176, 134 A. 744; affirmed 101 N.J.Eq. 302, 137 A. 918. At the time that the previous motion was decided by Vice Chancellor Egan, the issues of fraud and duress in the making of the agreement were undetermined. As stated, these issues have now been decided against the plaintiff.
Prior to the institution of this suit, the defendant herein petitioned the Circuit Court for an order to compel arbitration pursuant to R.S. 2:40-12 et seq., N.J.S.A. Judge Ackerson considered the application and said: (Citing cases construing statutes in each case similar to our own.)
The petition to compel arbitration was dismissed on the following grounds:
(1) That the making of the agreement for arbitration is not in issue within the meaning of the statute.
(2) That the petitioner (defendant in this suit failed to produce any competent evidence that the respondent (plaintiff in this suit) has failed to comply with the arbitration provisions of the aforesaid agreement.
In the course of his opinion, Judge Ackerson cited Lipman v. Haeuser Shellac Co., 289 N.Y. 76, 43 N.E.2d 817, 819, 142 A.L.R. 1088. That case construes the arbitration statute of New York which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. v. LOCAL LODGE NO. 1717, ETC., 13654.
...1952); Lewittes & Sons v. United Furniture Workers of America, 95 F.Supp. 851 (S.D.N.Y.1951). See Hudson Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Allied Trades Council, 3 N.J.Super. 327, 65 A.2d 557 (1949). 6 Structural Steel & Ornamental Iron Ass'n of New Jersey, Inc. v. Shopmens Local Union 545, 172 F.Su......
-
Signal-Stat Corporation v. LOCAL 475, ETC.
...Ass'n, etc., D.C., 98 F. Supp. 789, 791, reversed on other grounds, 3 Cir., 193 F.2d 327; Hudson Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Allied Trades Council, N.J.Ch., 3 N.J.Super. 327, 65 A.2d 557, 559. The plaintiff itself apparently construed the grievance-arbitration provision to include this dispute......
-
Ehrhart & Associates, Inc. v. Superior Court In and ForLos Angeles County
...from the defense of cancellation, therefore, must be submitted for decision to the arbitrators.' Hudson Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Allied Trades Coun., 3 N.J.Super. 327, 65 A.2d 557 (also involving a statute similar to ours) agrees with the Lipman case, supra. The court states, 65 A.2d at pag......
-
Tenney Engineering, Inc. v. United Elec., R. & M. Wkrs.
...Ass'n, etc., D.C., 98 F. Supp. 789, 791, reversed on other grounds, 3 Cir., 193 F.2d 327; Hudson Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Allied Trades Council, N.J.Ch., 3 N.J. Super. 327, 65 A.2d 557, 559." True, there are cases reaching a contrary result, as Signal-Stat, supra, indicates, that on which p......