Johnson v. Kings County Lighting Co.
| Citation | 141 N.Y.S.2d 411 |
| Parties | 28 Lab.Cas. P 69,307 Victor JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. KINGS COUNTY LIGHTING COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1955 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
Oliver J. Harper, New York City, for plaintiff.
Levien & Singer, New York City, for defendant.
This is a motion to stay an action now pending in this court until arbitration be had between the parties.
The action is one brought by a former employee seeking damages for an alleged wrongful discharge. In his complaint the plaintiff alleges that he was employed by the defendant from March 20, 1924, until January 26, 1953; that he was hired pursuant to an agreement, evidently oral, the terms of which are alleged in detail in paragraphs fourth and fifth of said complaint; and that on August 25, 1952, the plaintiff became a member of a union and that on that same date said union made a contract with the defendant 'for and on behalf of and for the benefit of the employees and of the plaintiff, wherein the said union acted as the representative and collective bargaining agent for the employees of the defendant company, wherein and whereby all of the aforementioned terms, conditions, representations and agreements of employment and discharge as previously set forth herein, were reiterated, reaffirmed and integrated in and incorporated into the written agreement by and between the defendant and the union, the latter executing the contract on behalf of and for the benefit of the employees of the company, to wit, the plaintiff herein' (paragraph seventh of complaint). Plaintiff alleges further that he was injured and was compelled to discontinue working in October, 1952, that the defendant accepted an opinion of a doctor employed by the defendant's insurance carrier to the effect that the plaintiff was able to work and on January 26, 1953, advised plaintiff that his services terminated. Plaintiff alleges further in paragraph seventeenth of the complaint: 'That by virtue of all of the aforesaid, the actions of the defendant were arbitrary, unfair and illegal and constituted a repudiation and a breach of the contract of employment and the agreement as hereinbefore set forth, and that the defendant unlawfully and improperly breached, severed and terminated the aforesaid contract of employment without any reasonable, proper or just cause therefor, and in violation of its agreement of employment; that the plaintiff has fully performed all the terms, agreements and conditions on his part to be performed, and that by virtue of all of the aforesaid, plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars, no part of which has been paid, although duly demanded.'
It is obvious that plaintiff's right to relief in this action is based upon the provisions of the contract between the union and the defendant employer. It is the defendant's contention, however, that plaintiff is bound by the arbitration provisions in the labor contract and, consequently, the action should be stayed pending arbitration pursuant to section 1451 of the Civil Practice Act.
The contract contains a full and complete procedure for the adjustment of grievances between the parties. In such respect, Article IX provides in part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larsen v. American Airlines, Inc.
...Ct., 159 N.Y.S. 2d 53 (1957); Di Rienzo v. Farrand Optical Co., Municipal Ct., 148 N.Y.S.2d 587 (1956); Johnson v. Kings County Lighting Co., Sup.Ct., 141 N.Y.S.2d 411 (1955). We think these cases reflect a sound policy, and one which should be controlling in this case. In recent years it h......
-
Larsen v. American Airlines, Inc.
...Pepper, City Ct., 159 N.Y.S.2d 53 (1957); Di Rienzo v. Farrand Optical Co., Mun.Ct., 148 N.Y.S.2d 587 (1956); Johnson v. Kings County Lighting Co., Sup., 141 N.Y.S.2d 411 (1955). We come now to the question whether plaintiff has been relieved from his contractual obligations because of the ......
-
Galley v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY
...before the individual employee is permitted to bring a court action." Belk, supra 315 F.2d at 515. In Johnson v. Kings County Lighting Co., 141 N.Y.S.2d 411, 414 (Sup.Ct. Kings Cty. 1955) the court, in holding that an employee seeking damages for alleged wrongful discharge must follow the g......
-
Palidoro v. Feuer Transp., Inc.
...wholly upon the agreement, from which is derived his alleged cause of action. * * * 'Moreover, as was stated in Johnson v. Kings County Lighting Co., Sup., 141 N.Y.S.2d 411, 414: '* * * The dominant purpose of the contracting parties was to avoid, if possible, industrial strife by requiring......