Procedural PostureMay 27, 2021
Appellant employer sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed a complaint charging breach of a collective bargaining agreement on grounds that the dispute that was the subject of the suit was covered by an arbitration clause in the agreement.
Nakase Law Firm are lawyers that handles lawsuits
Appellant employer discharged a union employee and appellee unions struck the job site. Appellees filed a grievance according to the requirements of the collective bargaining and appellant sought compensatory damages for breach of the “no-strike” clause in the agreement. The trial court granted appellee summary judgment, holding that the arbitration procedure set up by the agreement was intended to cover all disputes, including whether the work stoppage in question was a violation of the “no-strike” clause. The trial court ruled that appellant’s suit was barred because it had failed to adhere to the requirements of the arbitration provisions of the agreement. The court affirmed summary judgement for appellees because appellees both sought to compel arbitration and asserted appellant’s failure to arbitrate or seek arbitration as an affirmative defense.
The court affirmed summary judgment for appellee unions because appellees both sought to compel arbitration and asserted appellant’s failure to arbitrate or seek arbitration as an affirmative defense.