In re the Arbitration Between International Association of Machinists, District No. 15, Local No. 402, & Cutler-Hammer, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
105 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- O'MALLEY v. Wilshire Oil Co. (Cal. 1963)
- Service Employees International Union v. County of Napa (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)
- Raceway Park, Inc. Toledo Maumee Raceways, Inc. v. Local 47, Service Employees International Union (6th Cir. 1999)
- International Association of Machinists Lodge 1652 v. International Aircraft Services, Inc. (Charleston Division) (4th Cir. 1962)
- Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc. (Cal. 1961)
- International Union of Electrical Workers v. General Electric Co. (Conn. 1961)
- United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1960)
- United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company (5th Cir. 1959)
- Davenport v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company (2d Cir. 1957)
- Davenport v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. (2d Cir. 1957)
- In re the Arbitration between New York Mirror & Potoker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
- United Teachers v. Los Angeles Unified School District (Cal. 2012)
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Cover (Adams County Court of Common Pleas 1991)
- Crescent City Lodge No. 37, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. Boland Marine and Manufacturing Company, Inc. (5th Cir. 1979)
- Corvallis School District 509J v. Corvallis Education Ass'n (Or. Ct. App. 1978)
- United States Steel Corporation v. United Mine Workers Of America (5th Cir. 1975)
- United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America (5th Cir. 1975)
- MATTER OF ITT AVIS, INC. v. Tuttle (N.Y. 1970)
- Women's Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Savage (Pa. 1970)
- International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Afl-Cio v. General Electric Company (2d Cir. 1969)
- Mohawk Maintenance Co. v. Drake (New York Supreme Court 1967)
- In re the Arbitration between Uddo & Taormina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1964)
- Swift-Chaplin Productions, Inc. v. Love (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)
- Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. LOCAL UNION NO. 1289 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (N.J. 1962)
- Package & Utility Drivers, Local No. 396 v. Hearst Publishing Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1962)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Thacher, and Dye, JJ.; Ftjld, J., dissents in following memorandum in which Desmond, J., concurs.
A claim may be“ so unconscionable or a defense so frivolous ’ ’ as to justify the court in refusing to order the parties to proceed to arbitration (Matter of Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, 239 N. Y. 199, 202), but I do not so regard the claim here asserted. I have difficulty in concluding, as respondent urges, that reasonable men cannot differ as to the meaning of the provision in question. While I see that as a possible construction, I do not consider it the only one. It may well be argued, and in good faith, that in the light of surrounding circumstances and of experience in the industry, and, indeed, in this very business, respondent company agreed that a bonus would be paid — at least where the company’s business warranted — and that it would discuss with the employees the amount of payment, i.e., “ payment of a bonus ”.
If there is a possibility of such a construction, the court should not remove the controversy from the sphere of arbitra *521 tian, particularly "when the applicable arbitration clause — ‘1 If any dispute shall arise * * * as to meaning, performance, non-performance or application of the provisions of this agreement ” ■ — is so broad.
In short, I think that there is something to arbitrate, and the order should be reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.