In re the Arbitration between Hall & Sperry Gyroscope Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Hall & Sperry Gyroscope Co.

7 A.D.2d 897, 181 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10085

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 897 (In re the Arbitration between Hall & Sperry Gyroscope Co.) 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 Hall & Sperry Gyroscope Co., 7 A.D.2d 897, 181 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs ánd disbursements, and respondent-appellant’s motion for a stay of arbitration is granted. On April 21, 1958 the petitioner-respondent filed with the respondent-appellant a grievance in regard to its original employment of an engineering aide on or about April 2, 1958 despite the fact that engineering aides previously employed by it were available for recall. Petitioner-respondent’s grievance alleges that the employment of the new engineering aide was in violation of article 8, sections B and C (2) of the agreement between the parties entered into as of March 15, 1958. Whether the sections of article 8 are applicable to the position involved in this dispute is not determinative. What is dear is that grievances as to Class I and certain of Class II positions are expressly excluded from the arbitration provisions of the agreement. The position in question falls within the excluded groups. Hence, an arbitration may not lie. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs ánd disbursements, and respondent-appellant’s motion for a stay of arbitration is granted. On April 21, 1958 the petitioner-respondent filed with the respondent-appellant a grievance in regard to its original employment of an engineering aide on or about April 2, 1958 despite the fact that engineering aides previously employed by it were available for recall. Petitioner-respondent’s grievance alleges that the employment of the new engineering aide was in violation of article 8, sections B and C (2) of the agreement between the parties entered into as of March 15, 1958. Whether the sections of article 8 are applicable to the position involved in this dispute is not determinative. What is dear is that grievances as to Class I and certain of Class II positions are expressly excluded from the arbitration provisions of the agreement. The position in question falls within the excluded groups. Hence, an arbitration may not lie. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 897, 181 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-hall-sperry-gyroscope-co-nyappdiv-1959.