Spilkewitz v. Pepper

• Decision Date: 11 January 1957
• Citation: 34 Misc.2d 746,159 N.Y.S.2d 53
• Parties: Robert SPILKEWITZ, Petitioner v. Murray PEPPER, Respondent.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 53

159 N.Y.S.2d 53

34 Misc.2d 746

Robert SPILKEWITZ, Petitioner v. Murray PEPPER, Respondent.

City Court of City of New York, Special Term, New York County, Part I.

Jan. 11, 1957.

Arthur K. Ash, New York City, for petitioner.

Nathan Ravner, New York City, for respondent.

SILVERMAN, Justice.

This is a motion in the form of a petition by Robert Spilkewitz, as employer, to stay the action herein until arbitration be had between the parties hereto in accordance with an arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the Harlem Labor Union Inc. and Roberts Grocery Store, of which Robert Spilkewitz is named as president.

The action was brought by Murray Pepper as plaintiff-employee (referred to herein as respondent) against Robert Spilkewitz as defendant-employer (referred to herein as petitioner) to recover $4,867 for alleged overtime wages. In his complaint plaintiff states that he was employed by defendant as a grocery clerk from November 1, 1954, to June 23, 1956, at defendant's grocery store located in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City. The pertinent paragraph of the Union agreement herein reads as follows:

'14. Should the parties be unable to agree as to any matter pertaining to this agreement, then in that event, the subject matter shall be submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator shall be selected as the New York State Board of Mediation. The decision of the arbitrator shall be binding upon both parties.'

The employee, the respondent herein, opposes the motion and contends that the issues involved in the action are not properly subject to arbitration and do not fall within the provisions of the hereinabove quoted paragraph of the Union agreement. He further contends that the contract between the Union and Robert Spilkewitz (petitioner herein) refers only to labor disputes between the Union and the employer and not to controversies between the employer and individual employees.

I cannot agree with the respondent's contentions. It is obvious that the right of the respondent to relief in the action as an individual employee is based upon divers provisions of the agreement between the Union and the petitioner and that he, the respondent, relies wholly upon the agreement, from which is derived his alleged cause of action. In fact, paragraphs 'Third' and 'Fourth' of the complaint herein specifically refer to and incorporate the Union agreement. The provisions for arbitration found in the Union agreement in hand, as hereinabove set forth, closely approximate the language found in a similar agreement in Matter of Potoker (Brooklyn Eagle), 286 App.Div. 733, 146 N.Y.S.2d 616, wherein the Court reversed the order appealed...