School Committee of Agawam v. Agawam Ed. Ass'n

Citation359 N.E.2d 956,371 Mass. 845
Parties, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2969, 80 Lab.Cas. P 54,047 SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF AGAWAM v. AGAWAM EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al. 1
Decision Date09 February 1977
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

John J. Teahan, Agawam, for plaintiff.

Brian A. Riley, Boston (Joan G. Dolan, Boston, with him), for defendants.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and QUIRICO, KAPLAN, WILKINS and LIACOS, JJ.

WILKINS, Justice.

The School Committee of Agawam (committee) appeals from a judgment denying its motion under G.L. c. 150A, § 2(b), to stay arbitration of a grievance advanced by the Agawam Education Association (association) on behalf of a teacher in the Agawam school system. The collective bargaining agreement between the committee and the association contains a grievance and arbitration procedure for the resolution of 'those problems which from time to time may arise and affect the conditions of employment of the employees covered by' the agreement.

We dismiss the appeal because an order denying an application to stay an arbitration proceeding is not appealable under G.L. c. 150C, inserted by St.1959, c. 546, § 1, concerning collective bargaining agreements to arbitrate controversies. Section 16 of G.L. c. 150C, which is set forth in the margin, 2 lists six circumstances in which an appeal is authorized. Although an appeal may be taken from 'an order granting an application to stay arbitration made under paragraph (b) of section two,' an appeal from an order denying such an application is not permitted. G.L. c. 150C, § 16. See Maietta v. Greenfield, 267 Md. 287, 293--294, 297 A.2d 244 (1972).

Although a judgment was entered in this case and appeals are permittee from judgments entered pursuant to G.L. c. 150C (see cl. (6) of § 16), judgment should not have been entered. It is true that the order declining to stay arbitration was conclusive of the issues then before the judge and was in that sense final. However, Rule 54 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure (365 Mass. 820 (1974)) describes a 'judgment' as 'the act of the trial court finally adjudicating the rights of the parties affected . . ..' An order denying a request to stay arbitration is not an act finally adjudicating the rights of the parties affected. See Harris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 283 So.2d 147, 149 (Fla.App.1973). The final adjudication will occur when the court acts after the arbitration proceeding is terminated. Although G.L. c. 150C preceded the adoption of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, it is consistent with those rules in not requiring the entry of a judgment in such an instance. The court action stands in abeyance pending the conclusion of the arbitration. Further proceedings, which will finally adjudicate the rights of the parties, and thus warrant the entry of a judgment, can take place thereafter in the same court action. See Teamsters Local 695 v. County of Waukesha, 57 Wis.2d 62, 69--70, 203 N.W.2d 707 (1973). Consequently, in this proceeding there was no judgment from which an appeal properly could be taken. 3

The legislative purpose is clear that an arbitration proceeding should not be delayed by an appeal when a judge has concluded that there is an 'agreement to arbitrate' and 'the claim sought to be arbitrated . . . (states) a controversy covered by the provision for arbitration . . .' See G.L. c. 150C, § 2(b). The issue of arbitrability under the terms of an agreement may be preserved and raised subsequently in a proceeding seeking to vacate the arbitrator's award. G.L. c. 150C, § 11(a)(3). 4 In a different context, we have expressed a view consistent with the legislative philosophy which denies review in these circumstances. In Cavanaugh v. McDonnell & Co.,357 Mass. 452, 457, 258 N.E.2d 561, 564 (1970), we said that 'arbitration, once undertaken, should continue freely without being subjected to a judicial restraint which would tend to render the proceedings neither one thing nor the other, but transform them into a hybrid, part judicial and part arbitrational.' An order staying arbitration, of course, stands on a different footing because of its finality and is appealable under § 16.

The view we reach is consistent with decisions in other jurisdictions which have statutes, like G.L. c. 150C, modeled on the Uniform Arbitration Act 5 or which have statutes not listing an order declining to stay arbitration as appealable. 6

Appeal dismissed.

1 The other defendants are (a) Miriam Hirschhaut, the teacher in the Agawam school system, on whose behalf the defendant association filed a grievance and demanded arbitration, and (b) the president and secretary of the association, and the chairman of the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee of the association, individually and as representatives of the association.

2 General Laws c. 150C § 16, reads as follows: 'An appeal may be taken from (1) an order denying an application to compel arbitration made under paragraph (a) of section two; (2) an order granting an application to stay arbitration made under paragraph (b) of section two; (3) an order confirming or denying confirmation of an award; (4) an order modifying or correcting an award; (5) an order vacating an award without directing a rehearing; or (6) a judgment or decree entered pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

'Such appeal shall be taken in the manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in an action.'

3 In this case the order (and the judgment) simply denied the request...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Town of Framingham v. Union, 17–P–1178.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • July 10, 2018
    ...an appeal [at least as of right] from any type of order not so enumerated is precluded"). See also School Comm. of Agawam v. Agawam Educ. Assn., 371 Mass. 845, 846, 359 N.E.2d 956 (1977) (order denying application to stay arbitration not appealable under § 16 ).8 General Laws c. 150E, § 7(d......
  • Parker v. K & L Gates, LLP, 11–CV–1578.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • September 19, 2013
    ...to compel arbitration does not dispose of the entire case on the merits.” Id. (citing School Committee of Agawam v. Agawam Educ. Ass'n, 371 Mass. 845, 359 N.E.2d 956, 957 (1977) (holding non-final an order denying request to stay arbitration)). The court then concluded its statutory analysi......
  • Kauders v. Uber Techs., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 4, 2021
    ...the court grants the motion and compels arbitration, that order is not immediately appealable. See School Comm. of Agawam v. Agawam Educ. Ass'n, 371 Mass. 845, 847, 359 N.E.2d 956 (1977) ("The legislative purpose [of G. L. c. 150C] is clear that an arbitration proceeding should not be delay......
  • Reilly v. Local 589, Amalgamated Transit Union
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 3, 1986
    ...in a proceeding seeking to vacate the arbitrator's award. G.L. c. 150C, § 11(a )(3)," citing School Comm. of Agawam v. Agawam Educ. Assn., 371 Mass. 845, 847-848, 359 N.E.2d 956 (1977).11 See Norton v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 369 Mass. 1, 2, 336 N.E.2d 854 (1975), which held that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT