In re the Arbitration Between Local 345 of the Retail Store Employees Union & Heinrich Motors, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Bowery Residents' Comm., Inc. v. Lance Capital, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Anderson v. Blabey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Nassau Health Care Corp. v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- City University v. Aiello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- City of New York v. Stringfellow's of New York, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Ometz Realty Corp. v. Vanette Auto Supplies, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Puckett v. County of Erie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Social Service Employees Union, Local 371 v. City of New York Office of Labor Relations (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Town of Newburgh v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- In re the Arbitration between Town of Callicoon & Civil Service Employees Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the supplemental award set aside.
In this collective bargaining agreement in the private sector the arbitration clause expressly provides that: “No award shall be effective retroactively beyond the date on which the grievance was first presented in writing pursu *987 ant to the grievance procedure as herein provided, nor for any period subsequent to the termination of the Agreement”. The arbitrator disregarded this clause concluding that it would be unconscionable to give effect to it in this case.
In collective bargaining agreements governed by Federal law, an arbitrator cannot exceed the limitations imposed on him by the arbitration agreement itself. “When the arbitrator’s words manifest an infidelity to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award” (Steelworkers v Enterprise Corp., 363 US 593, 597). In the case now before us, therefore, the arbitrator could not ignore an express limitation on his powers which specifically precluded him from granting retroactive relief (see, also, Matter of Local 1 of United Food & Commercial Workers [Heinrich Motors], 559 F Supp 192). Indeed the same result would be reached under the laws of this State (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.