In the hopes of resolving disputes in an expeditious and efficient manner, arbitration provisions are commonly found in commercial contracts. Despite the best efforts at avoiding judicial intervention through the inclusion of such provisions, resort to the courts still occurs often by one of the parties to interpret or enforce such arbitration provisions. This column discusses three such recent decisions by Justice Herman Cahn.
In Matter of Sheet Metal Workers International Association v. Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York,[1]� petitioners, a local union and its parent association, moved to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511(b)(2)(ii). Respondents were another local union and a trade association of which both local unions were members. As members of the trade association, the locals are parties to an agreement that provides a forum for the expeditious and fair resolution of jurisdictional disputes, disputes that arise when one union claims that work has been improperly assigned to members of another union, through a three-step dispute resolution process, ending with binding arbitration. The locals participated in the first two stages of the dispute resolution, but the petitioner local objected to arbitration and did not attend the arbitration hearing.[2]�
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
