In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580

210 A.D.2d 142, 620 N.Y.S.2d 348

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 142 (In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580, 210 A.D.2d 142, 620 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered April 14, 1994, which denied the petition pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay the noticed arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted.

Despite respondent union’s artful framing of its contentions such that they appear to seek only delinquent trust fund contributions, we find that this matter falls squarely within the rationale of our decision in A.A. Bldg. Erectors v Local Union 580 (189 AD2d 683), where we held that a dispute in which one union sought to arbitrate with an employer the question of whether its members should have performed certain work which was performed by another union, and therefore, whether, under applicable contracts, the employer should have contributed to the aggrieved union’s benefit fund, is a jurisdictional dispute between the two unions.

We also find that jurisdictional disputes are not arbitrable under either of this collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration provisions, since, inter alia, at sections I and XXII (f), it expressly makes jurisdictional dispute resolution subject to other trade agreements adopted by the construction industry specifically for that purpose. Furthermore, respondent’s claim would appear to fall outside of the collective bargaining agreement’s "trust fund protection” arbitration provision because respondent admittedly seeks fund contributions for work not performed by its members. The terms of each trust fund agreement, which are incorporated by reference into the arbitration provision, link the employer’s obligation to make fund contributions to hours actually worked by Local 580 employees. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered April 14, 1994, which denied the petition pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay the noticed arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted.

Despite respondent union’s artful framing of its contentions such that they appear to seek only delinquent trust fund contributions, we find that this matter falls squarely within the rationale of our decision in A.A. Bldg. Erectors v Local Union 580 (189 AD2d 683), where we held that a dispute in which one union sought to arbitrate with an employer the question of whether its members should have performed certain work which was performed by another union, and therefore, whether, under applicable contracts, the employer should have contributed to the aggrieved union’s benefit fund, is a jurisdictional dispute between the two unions.

We also find that jurisdictional disputes are not arbitrable under either of this collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration provisions, since, inter alia, at sections I and XXII (f), it expressly makes jurisdictional dispute resolution subject to other trade agreements adopted by the construction industry specifically for that purpose. Furthermore, respondent’s claim would appear to fall outside of the collective bargaining agreement’s "trust fund protection” arbitration provision because respondent admittedly seeks fund contributions for work not performed by its members. The terms of each trust fund agreement, which are incorporated by reference into the arbitration provision, link the employer’s obligation to make fund contributions to hours actually worked by Local 580 employees. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 142, 620 N.Y.S.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-afco-metals-inc-local-union-580-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack