Opinion ID: 2430576
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity of Ex Parte Arbitration Procedure

Text: The Company next takes the position that the contract does not authorize the ex parte appointment of an arbitrator whose award shall be binding on the parties. The contract provides that in the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator either party shall have the right to request the American Arbitration Association to appoint an arbitrator. We are unable to comprehend what could possibly be the purpose of this provision unless the arbitrator so appointed would have the right to arbitrate the dispute and finally to settle it. Otherwise the language would be meaningless. The sentence following this provision in the contract, at least by implication, shows plainly that such arbitrator does have the full power to act on the dispute (provided it is an arbitrable matter.) The many cases cited by the Company involve contracts containing no such wording. A comparable arbitration provision was considered and ex parte proceedings upheld in Battle v. General Cellulose Company, 23 N.J. 538, 129 A.2d 865. It seems clear on this record that the union scrupulously followed the only proper procedure to secure an arbitrator when the Company refused to participate. There was no procedural impropriety.