New York Court of Appeals, 1949

In re the Arbitration between General Electric Co. & United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, C.I.O.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 29, 1949

300 N.Y. 262

Cases that cite this one

31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

International Union of Electrical Workers v. General Electric Co. (Conn. 1961)
In re Arbitration Between De Laurentiis & Cinematografica De Las Americas, S. A. (N.Y. 1961)
In re the Arbitration between Gallagher & Esso Standard Oil Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
In re the Arbitration between New York Mirror & Potoker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
Davenport v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company (2d Cir. 1957)
Davenport v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. (2d Cir. 1957)
Alpert v. Admiration Knitwear Co. (N.Y. 1952)
In re Arbitration between Exercycle Corp. & Maratta (N.Y. 1961)
In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi (N.Y. 1961)
In re the Arbitration Between Rosenthal-Porzellan & Steelmasters, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1961)
Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America (Ohio Ct. App. 1960)
Hausner v. Hopewell Products, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
In re the Arbitration between Film Producers Ass'n of New York, Inc. & Wasserman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
In re the Arbitration between Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. & Crotty (New York Supreme Court 1960)
In re the Arbitration between National Broadcasting Co. & Paddock (New York Supreme Court 1960)
In re the Arbitration Between H. D. Baskind & Co. & Bank (New York Supreme Court 1960)
In re the Arbitration Between Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. & Freeman (New York Supreme Court 1960)
In re the Arbitration between Karpinecz & Marshall (New York Supreme Court 1960)
Local 201, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Afl-Cio v. General Electric Company (1st Cir. 1959)
Sunnyvale Westinghouse Salaried Employees Ass'n v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1959)
International Union of Electrical & Machine Workers v. General Electric Co. (Connecticut Superior Court 1959)
Stanton v. Greenwald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
In re the Arbitration between Potoker & Brooklyn Eagle, Inc. (N.Y. 1957)
Engineers Ass'n v. Sperry Gyroscope Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1957)
Livingston v. Tel-Ant Electronic Co. (New York Supreme Court 1955)

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

Per Curiam.

A collective bargaining agreement between the union and the company provides for arbitration of disputes over the application or interpretation of any of its provisions. The contract also contains the usual prohibition of company discrimination against an employee because of union activity. Under another collective agreement the company pays each employee who serves as a union representative in adjusting grievances or negotiating with management for a maximum of eight hours per week. For all time spent upon union activity *264beyond that maximum the union pays the employee at his normal rate. In 1946, the company voluntarily established an employee’s pension plan whereby each employee receives pension credits based upon the time for which he is paid by the company. The collective agreement is silent on the subject of pensions, and the union has failed by negotiation to induce the company to make any commitment in that respect. The union now asserts that it is entitled to arbitrate its claim that the company is violating the antidiscrimination provision of the collective bargaining agreement by failure to afford pension credits for time spent in union activities beyond those hours for which the company has agreed to pay.

If, under the unambiguous terms of an agreement calling for arbitration, there has been no default, the court may not make an order compelling a party to proceed to arbitration (Matter of International Assn, of Machinists [Cutler-Hammer, Inc.], 271 App. Div. 917, affd. 297 N. Y. 519). Whether or not a bona fide dispute exists is a question of law (Matter of Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, 239 N. Y. 199, 202-203). If there is no real ground of claim, the court may refuse to allow arbitration, although the alleged dispute may fall within the literal language of the arbitration agreement. Such is the situation here. The antidiscrimination clause of the collective bargaining agreement cannot be invoked, in the circumstances of this case, to compel a change in the second collective agreement. Neither compensation nor pension credits are given by the company for time spent in union activity beyond the maximum number of hours per week for which the company has agreed to pay. To do so would be to discriminate in favor of the union representatives. The company has no such obligation. The pension plan is administered on the basis of compensation paid to all of its employees. There is no possible basis for a charge of discrimination, and by that token, no possible ground for arbitration.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Lottghran, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.