Legal Opinion

In Re the Arbitration Between Local 345 of the Retail Store Employees Union & Heinrich Motors, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 15, 1984PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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 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.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Norris v. CooperNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Local 1 of United Food & Com'l Workers v. Heinrich MotorsDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1983

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  2. Ometz Realty Corp. v. Vanette Auto Supplies, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  3. Town of Newburgh v. Civil Service Employees Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  4. Nassau Health Care Corp. v. Civil Service Employees Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  5. Puckett v. County of ErieAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API