Sarle & Sperry Gyroscope Co., Matter of
| Citation | 4 N.Y.2d 917,151 N.E.2d 95,174 N.Y.S.2d 665 |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | A,AFL-CI |
| Parties | , 151 N.E.2d 95 In the Matter of the Arbitration between John SARLE, as President Local 450, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,ppellant- Respondent, and SPERRY GYROSCOPE COMPANY, Division of Sperry Rand Corp., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 4 A.D.2d 638, 168 N.Y.S.2d 228.
Proceeding in the matter of the arbitration between president of union and employer, wherein a demand for arbitration was made by the union. The employer made an application to stay arbitration, on ground that proposed issues did not constitute bona fide disputes.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Owen McGivern, J., 167 N.Y.S.2d 553, entered an order denying the application of the employer, and the employer appealed.
The Appellate Division, Breitel, J., 4 A.D.2d 638, 168 N.Y.S.2d 228, modified and affirmed the order and held that question whether resignations of employees were voluntary was properly the subject of arbitration, but that under labor contract providing that no employee, with respect to whom a grievance is pending, shall be summoned by employer unless representative of union is present, it was clear without dispute that formal grievance procedure was only intended to be affected, and issue as to whether union representative was improperly excluded from meeting with employees was not a bona fide dispute.
The president of the union appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the employer cross-appealed.
Irving Abramson, New York City (Everett E. Lewis, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellant-respondent.
Roosevelt & Freidin, New York City (Emanuel L. Gordon, New York City, of counsel), for respondent-respondent-appellant.
Order affirmed, without costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Exercycle Corp. v. Maratta
...at page 79, 43 N.E.2d at page 819); and in Matter of Sarle (Sperry Gyroscope Co.), 4 A.D.2d 638, 168 N.Y.S.2d 228, 230, affirmed 4 N.Y.2d 917, 174 N.Y.S.2d 665, the distinction between questions of 'performance under the contract' and 'the contract itself' was stressed (4 A.D.2d at page 640......
-
Transpacific Transport Corp. v. Sirena Shipping Co., S.A.
...Corp. (Plotnick), 3 N.Y.2d 17, 163 N.Y.S.2d 639, and Matter of Sarle (Sperry Gyroscope), 4 A.D.2d 638, 168 N.Y.S.2d 228, affirmed 4 N.Y.2d 917, 174 N.Y.S.2d 665 are beside the point. In each case the demand consisted of separate items, one of which, as to a substantive issue, was held to be......
-
George Rattray & Co., Application of
...of the agreement no default has occurred, Matter of Sarle (Sperry Gyroscope), 4 A.D.2d 638, 168 N.Y.S.2d 228, 232, affirmed 4 N.Y.2 917, 174 N.Y.S.2d 665; Matter of Potoker (Brooklyn Eagle) 2 N.Y.2d 553, 559, 161 N.Y.S.2d 609, 612. The burden of showing such a dispute is upon the party dema......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...... Lake County Trust Co. v. Indiana Port Commission (1967), 248 Ind. 362, 229 ... is a similar statute, covering much the same subject matter, and as such should be considered in construing the meaning ......