Federico v. Frick

California Court of Appeal Jan 26, 1970 No. Civ. 34084Published

Before: Cobey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment confirming an arbitration award, holding that an employer's failure to read a contract, ignorance of arbitration procedures, and the alleged non-neutrality of an arbitration board are not valid statutory grounds to vacate an award.

Issues

Whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable if a party failed to read the contract or claims it is a contract of adhesion.
Whether an arbitration award can be vacated on the grounds that the arbitration board was not impartial or neutral.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Failure to read an entire contract is not a basis for its revocation.”

“Similarly, ignorance of the arbitral nature of the proceedings is not one of the statutory grounds for vacation of an arbitration award.”

“potential unfairness resulting from the nonneutral nature of the controlling arbitrator is not a statutory ground for either vacation of the award or dismissal of the confirmation proceedings.”

Opinion

COBEY, J.

Jerome H. Frick appeals from a judgment for $12,627 confirming an arbitration award against him. The appeal lies. (Code Civ.

[874]

Proc., § 1294, subd. (d).) The basis of the appeal, broadly stated, is that there was no agreement to arbitrate and the arbitration was not an impartial one. We find no merit in the appeal.

The Facts Generally

On August 23, 1967, Armando Federico was hired for a period of one year as a pianist at the Mikado, a restaurant and cocktail lounge owned and operated by Frick. This employment was made under a standard printed contract of Local 47 of the American Federation of Musicians. Federico was a member of the local.

The employment contract contained a Paragraph 11, reading in relevant part as follows: “. . . All controversies involving matters within the competence of Locals of the Federation arising out of this contract,

[sic]

shall be submitted to, heard, arbitrated and determined by the person, persons or body specified by the rules, By-laws or practices of the Local in whose jurisdiction the services have been or are to be performed in accordance with the procedures in such rules or By-laws. . . .” Furthermore, Paragraph 10 of this contract provided that such rules and bylaws, among other things, were incorporated into the contract and “the employer acknowledges his responsibility to be fully acquainted, now and for the duration of this contract, with the contents thereof.”

Some weeks later Frick discharged Federico for conduct on the job allegedly offensive to certain female customers. On November 22, 1967, Federico filed a formal claim with the local for the balance of his year’s salary. Arbitration hearings were thereafter held by a five member trial board of the local which made the arbitration award at issue

on January 17, 1968. Upon Frick’s failure to pay the award, Federico commenced in timely fashion the confirmation proceedings which are now before us. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.)

Federico v. Frick

AI Brief

COBEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief