Stein v. Local 680 Of Milk Drivers

• Decision Date: 23 January 1948
• Docket Number: 148/35.
• Citation: 56 A.2d 715
• Parties: STEIN v. LOCAL 680 OF MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES OF NEW JERSEY.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

56 A.2d 715

STEIN

v.LOCAL 680 OF MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES OF NEW JERSEY.

148/35.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Jan. 23, 1948.

Suit by Edward Stein, Jr., trading as Berkshire Dairy Company, against Local 680 of the Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees of New Jersey, for rescission of a collective bargaining agreement and to restrain defendant from continuing with arbitration proceedings and to decree that the award made in the arbitration proceedings be declared void, wherein defendant filed a counterclaim praying enforcement of the award made in the arbitration proceedings. On bill, answer and counterclaim.

Decree advised in accordance with opinion.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Upon the refusal of complainant in the instant matter to participate in the arbitration proceedings it was incumbent upon the defendant to seek an order from a Justice of the Supreme Court or Judge of the Circuit Court directing that the arbitration proceed.

2. Where the arbitrator refused a request for adjournment founded upon sufficient reason, and offered at the proper time, it is good cause for setting aside the award.

3. Where the award of the arbitrator was entered in face of the injunction of the Court restraining such proceedings of which restraint the arbitrator had notice, the Court will refuse to grant a decree enjoining and commanding obedience to the terms and provisions of the arbitrator's award.

Julius Stein, of Newark, for complainant.

Thomas L. Parsonnet, of Newark, for defendant.

STEIN, Vice Chancellor.

The bill of complaint in this matter was brought for rescission of a collective bargaining agreement and to restrain the defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Local 680 from continuing with arbitration proceedings and to decree that the award made in the arbitration proceedings be declared illegal and void. The Union filed answer and counterclaim, praying the enforcement of the award made in the arbitration proceedings. The hearing on the bill of complaint was had and a decree entered on May 5, 1947 dismissing the bill of complaint, and a date for final hearing on the counterclaim of the defendant postponed to a date in the future. The hearing on the counterclaim was held of November 10, 1947.

The existence of the collective bargaining agreement with the Union is not in dispute and it provides for the arbitration of disputes arising thereunder. Such a dispute arose because of the refusal of the company to hire Richard Caulfield on February 3, 1944, and the Union undertook to set in motion the arbitration clause provided for in article 24 of the agreement. The complainant refused to attend the hearing before the arbitrator and notified the arbitrator of his refusal so to do on March 8, 1944, upon the ground that the complainant ‘has heretofore rescinded its contract with the Union by reason of a material breach of said contract on the part of the Union. * * *’ The arbitrator nevertheless proceeded with the hearing and made an award. The question therefore posed was whether or not the collective bargaining agreement had been for good cause rescinded. If not, it was in full force.

The only testimony bearing upon the matter of rescission was that of the complainant wherein he said:

‘Q. Did you on or about February 3, 1944, send a letter to Local 680? A. Yes, I did.

‘Q. Did you make a copy of the letter? A. No, sir, I did not.

‘Q. Did you mail that letter personally? A. I did. I wrote it in longhand and mailed it.

‘Q. And what was said by you in that letter? A. Well, I said in the letter that so far as his attitude goes with this Schmalz situation was concerned I didn't think they were living up to their agreement and I therefore rescinded the...