11Oct

The Collective Bargaining Agreement Limited The Arbitrator To Deciding

In Holzer v. Mondadori, No. 13-civ-5234 (NRB), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37168 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2013), in The First Detention and Release by Holzer v. Mondadori, 40 Misc.3d 1233 (A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013), for example, the defendants had marketed to the applicants investments in a real estate company in Dubai. When the company failed, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in New York State Court. One of the defendants requested its withdrawal on the basis of section 205 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C§ 205 (Application of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards), which authorizes the striking off of an action “relating” to a foreign arbitral or arbitral award under the New York Convention, and attempted to impose arbitration of the claimants` claims.

That defendant was not a signatory to the underlying sales contracts that contained the arbitration clause. In addition, those agreements contained a choice provision from Dubai. However, on the basis of precedents in other quarters, the Tribunal concluded that United States law should address the issue of arbitration capacity, since the definition of agreements governed by the New York Convention implies a division of jurisdiction between courts and arbitrators. It therefore decided that under customary law of Confederation, a party must provide “clear and unequivocal evidence” of an arbitrator`s intention to settle arbitration capacity. Who monitors the quality of a referee`s work? Decisions in Carlisle Power Transmission Prods., Inc. against United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. &Workers Int`l Union, 725 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2013) gave rise to a dispute between a union and an employer (Carlisle) over long-term disability benefits for a Carlisle employee injured on the job.

The union brought an action against Carlisle in accordance with the procedures set out in a 2001 collective agreement (CBA). This CBA expired a few days later and was replaced by a 2006 CBA. The parties agreed to refer to an arbitrator whether the union`s claim on behalf of the worker could be arbitrated under the 2006 CBA. This arbitrator found that the claim could be decided under the 2006 CBA, whereas the dispute was in force during the 2001 CBA. Carlisle and the union then chose another arbitrator to make the material claims and took a hearing date. However, Carlisle also requested that the court find that the union`s rights under the 2006 CBA were not distinct (primarily because the union wanted to obtain disability benefits governed by a separate agreement). “The clear and unequivocal rule” is simple. The hard part is to apply it. To what extent must parties be “clear and unambiguous” when choosing for an arbitrator to decide their own jurisdiction? A simple case is obvious if there is explicit language in the document actually signed for this purpose. For example: “We want arbitrators selected under this Agreement to have the authority to decide whether what is submitted to them is indeed able to be arbitrated under this Agreement.” But life is rarely that simple. If lawyers have a hunch to write such clauses, their contracts cannot normally be addressed to courts of appeal. Cases that are brought before appele courts often deal with whether an agreement should be bound to a certain set of rules, for example.

B the rules of the American Arbitration Association or the National Association of Securities Dealers, are sufficient to show that the parties have “clearly and unequivocally agreed” that the arbitrators will decide their own jurisdiction. “Most arbitration proceedings are contractual and the power of the arbitrator is derived from the application of the contractual terms and is limited to them instead of applying external law. . . .