Review of Court Decisions - Dispute Resolution Journal - Vol. 20, No. 3
Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal
ABBITRABILITY UNDER BROAD ARBITRATION CLAUSE — OVERTIME — APPLICATION OF WARRIOR & GULF CASE
Whether employees who had not worked a forty-hour week were entitled to overtime for Saturday work is an arbitrable issue, where collective bargaining agreement expressly deals with hours of work in detail, and where it provides for arbitration of any issue that involves the "interpretation or application" of any provision of the agreement. The United States Court of Appeals, in reversing the decision of the United States District Court, held that, in the light of Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co, 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960), where it cannot be said "with positive assurance that the arbitration clause in the case at bar is not susceptible of an interpretation" covering the dispute, arbitration must be ordered. Although there is no "inflexible rule" in defining an arbitrable issue, a determination being dependent upon the particular dispute and the arbitration provision involved, in view of the "broad . . . scope" of the arbitration provision in issue here, an arbitral issue is presented. Even assuming arguendo that the agrreement does not support the union's claim, the question requires an "interpretation" of the agreement, within the meaning of the arbitration clause. United Brick & Clay Workers of America and Local 790, United Brick flind Clay Workers of America v. A. P. Green Fire Brick Cbmpany, 343 F.2d 590 (1965).
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — NECESSARY PARTIES TO ARBITRATION — AUTHORITY OF ARBITRATOR TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PARTY OF PROCEEDINGS
Arbitration will not be stayed so that an unrepresented limited partner might be made a party to the case, where "neither we nor the petitimiers have any reason to believe that the arbitrator will overlook the possible effect of their absence on petitioners's interests," or that the arbitrator will capriciously decline to direct that the absent partners be notified of proceedings and be given an opportunity to be heard. " 'Court action, having a tendency to interfere with the prerogatives of the arbitrators or to delay their proceedings is not justified except where shown to be absolutely necessary for the protection of the rights of a party'." Rabinor v. Pashman, 23 App. Div.2d 741 (2d Dept. 1965).