Sholgen v. Lipsett, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Sholgen v. Lipsett, Inc.

14 Misc. 2d 296, 116 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1952 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1530

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 9, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 Misc. 2d 296 (Sholgen v. Lipsett, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sholgen v. Lipsett, Inc., 14 Misc. 2d 296, 116 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1952 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1530 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Arthur H. Schwartz, J.

A member of a union which has signed a collective agreement with an employer brings this proceeding to compel arbitration under that agreement. Petitioner, as an employee, is not a party to that agreement. Under the [297]*297arbitration terms thereof, only the union has the right to demand arbitration and not any individual members of the union who may have a grievance. To permit individual employees to invoke the arbitration machinery of a collective agreement would disrupt the proper operation of such procedures. The motion is therefore denied. Since the union has submitted an affidavit to the effect that it has no objection to a determination of petitioner’s grievance by arbitration, this motion is denied without prejudice to a demand for arbitration by the union.

Settle order.

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

Arthur H. Schwartz, J.

A member of a union which has signed a collective agreement with an employer brings this proceeding to compel arbitration under that agreement. Petitioner, as an employee, is not a party to that agreement. Under the [297]*297arbitration terms thereof, only the union has the right to demand arbitration and not any individual members of the union who may have a grievance. To permit individual employees to invoke the arbitration machinery of a collective agreement would disrupt the proper operation of such procedures. The motion is therefore denied. Since the union has submitted an affidavit to the effect that it has no objection to a determination of petitioner’s grievance by arbitration, this motion is denied without prejudice to a demand for arbitration by the union.

Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Misc. 2d 296, 116 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1952 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sholgen-v-lipsett-inc-nysupct-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack