Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CORPORATE PRINTING CO. v. NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL U

November 16, 1984

CORPORATE PRINTING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, against NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 and WALTER L. EISENBERG, Defendants.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: EDELSTEIN

OPINION AND ORDER

EDELSTEIN, District Judge:

 This action was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 29 U.S.C. § 185.

 Plaintiff Corporate Printing Company, Inc. ("Corporate Printing") brought this action to stay an arbitration commenced by defendant New York Typographical Union No. 6 ("Union") before defendant Walter L. Eisenberg ("Eisenberg"). *fn1" A second arbitration was commenced by Corporate Printing after this suit was filed. *fn2" The Union filed a motion for summary judgment on the original claim relating to the first arbitration and a motion for a preliminary injunction to stay the second arbitration. These motions were conditionally denied and a trial was commenced. The trial was terminated when it became apparent that no material issues of fact existed. It was determined at that time that the disputes regarding both arbitrations could be decided in the context of a single motion for summary judgment. The initial motions are deemed consolidated into the single motion for summary judgment considered herein. The parties have not submitted additional papers and none are needed. The facts are adequately presented in the submissions for the two original motions and the trial.

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 Corporate Printing was a member of an employees' association known as the Printer's League Section-Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York (the "League"). In 1975, the League, on behalf of its members, and the Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("1975 Agreement"). In February 1977 Corporate Printing expressly withdrew its collective bargaining authorization from the League. Corporate Printing later withdrew from the League. The withdrawal was before an agreement was entered into between the League and the Union which modified the 1975 agreement. *fn3" Corporate Printing did not adopt this agreement and is the only company still operating under the original 1975 Agreement.

 The 1975 Agreement provides for the appointment of a "Designated Arbitrator" to resolve disputes arising under the agreement. *fn4" The 1975 Agreement also prescribes the procedure for the selection and removal of the Designated Arbitrator. Article 13 provides in relevant part:

 The Desigfated Arbitrator (and any successor to a Designated Arbitrator) shall be selected by mutual agreement of the League and the Union; failing such mutual agreement, the selection shall be made in accordance with the Voluntary Labor Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association except that no administrative appointment may be made pursuant to such rules. Either party, on 60 days notice to the other party, has the right to seek the selection of another Designated Arbitrator.

 Defendant Eisenberg was the Designated Arbitrator under the 1975 Agreement.

 The Union sought arbitration before Eisenberg of a dispute with Corporate Printing. The dispute related to contributions by Corporate Printing to the Benefit and Productivity Fund ("BAP Fund") which was established to provide payments to employees displaced because of automation of the printing industry. Corporate Printing refused to submit to arbitration before Eisenberg and sought to dismiss Eisenberg as the Designated Arbitrator. This suit was brought by Corporate Printing to stay the BAP Fund arbitration.

 Following the commencement of this action, Corporate Printing notified the Union that Corporate Printing was invoking an arbitration pursuant to League Option A of the 1975 Agreement. League Option A provides that an arbitration may be sought by the League to challenge the cost of living increase provisions of the 1975 Agreement. *fn5" The Union counterclaimed to stay the League Option A arbitration.

 DISCUSSION

 A. Initial Arbitration

 Corporate Printing seeks to stay the intial arbitration relating to the BAP Fund on three theories. First, Corporate Printing claims that the Designated Arbitrator, Eisenberg, has been dismissed pursuant to the procedure provided for in the 1975 Agreement. Second, Corporate Printing claims that Eisenberg will not be able to render an impartial determination. Finally, Corporate Printing claims that the Union has ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.