Rusnak v. General Controls Co.

California Court of Appeal Aug 5, 1960 No. Civ. 23987Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An arbitration award is not "rendered" within the meaning of a collective bargaining agreement until the arbiter has communicated the decision to the parties, and an award not acknowledged or communicated within the mandatory time limit is a nullity.

Issues

Whether an arbitration award is "rendered" when signed by the arbiter or when communicated to the parties.
Whether an arbitration award not acknowledged within the time specified by the agreement is valid.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is settled that the provisions of an agreement requiring the arbiter to render an award within a specified period are mandatory and jurisdictional and that an award rendered after the time has expired is a nullity”

“We think it is too clear to require further discussion that a decision in writing although signed by the arbiter was not “rendered” so long as it was retained by him without notification to the parties or either of them of its contents.”

SHINN, P. J.

This is an appeal by George Rusnak on behalf of Precision Lodge Number 1600 of the International Association of Machinists and nine of its members from an

[584]

order confirming an arbitration award and denying a petition to have the award vacated.

Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the union and General Controls Company, a grievance of the nine union members was referred to an impartial arbiter chosen by the parties. Article XVIII, section D of the agreement provided: “The arbiter shall render a decision or award within ten days from the date of the conclusion of the hearings ...” exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The hearing terminated August 16, 1958; August 26th, the arbiter dated and signed an award in favor of the company; the award had not been acknowledged, as required by section 1287 of the Code of Civil Procedure; a copy was mailed to Rusnak on September 5th and received by him the following day; Rusnak returned the award to the arbiter for acknowledgment ; the award was acknowledged on September 19th and mailed to Rusnak, who received it on the 22nd. On behalf of the union and the nine members Rusnak petitioned the court to vacate the award; the company filed a petition for confirmation.

It is settled that the provisions of an agreement requiring the arbiter to render an award within a specified period are mandatory and jurisdictional and that an award rendered after the time has expired is a nullity and must be vacated by the court upon proper application.

(Ryan

Dougherty,

30 Cal. 218;

In re Abrams

Brennan,

2 Cal.App. 237 [84 P. 363];

Matter of Silliman,

159 Cal. 155 [113 P. 135];

Willis Finance & Const. Co.

Rusnak v. General Controls Co.

AI Brief

SHINN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief