Court Opinion

ID: 9518565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:56:01.087997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:34.853398
License: Public Domain

Edwards, J.
(concurring). I concur with the result reached by Mr. Justice Kelly in this case. I agree that the amended declaration did not state facts which (if assumed to be true) would warrant setting aside the arbitration decision on grounds of fraud. The pleadings relied on in this regard are either conclusionary or ambiguous.
Likewise, I would adhere to the standards previously declared in case law as to the limited grounds upon which we open the door of the courts to rehearing industrial disputes which the parties have agreed to submit for “final” decision to arbitration. See Cortez v. Ford Motor Co., 349 Mich 108.
The real question in this case, however, is whether or not (assuming the well-pleaded facts of plaintiff’s declaration are true) plaintiff was arbitrarily denied a fair hearing as defined in the contract which established the arbitration machinery. The contract clause in question reads:
“Sec. 20. The umpire may make such investigation as he may deem proper, and may, at his option, hold a hearing and examine the witnesses of each party, and each party shall have the right to cross-examine all witnesses produced and to make a record of all such proceedings.”
Plaintiff reads this as guaranteeing all the requisites of a judicial hearing if the arbitrator holds any hearing at all. The language quoted does not appear to me to support this interpretation. It contains a very broad grant of discretion to the umpire. He read this discretion (we think permissibly) as warranting conduct of off-the-record investigations and hearing hearsay evidence. Both of these procedures would be an anathema to the judicial process. But what we deal with here is not the judicial process but *670a private contract substitute therefor. "Whether such a contractual provision as we have quoted is necessary or wise is not for us to decide. The parties agreed to it and they had a right to do so.
The essentials of a fair hearing in arbitration proceedings are spelled out thus by one of the leading authorities in the field of labor arbitration:
“A fair hearing includes adequate notice of the time and place, a reasonable time for preparation, and an opportunity to present evidence and argument.” 30 Rocky Mountain L Rev 247, 249.
To these, this contract added a specific reference to a right of cross-examination.
"We do not find allegations in this pleading which claim that these minimum standards were violated. Specifically, we do not find any allegation that the umpire refused to hear any witness which plaintiff produced at the hearing or declined to allow plaintiff or his representative to cross-examine any witness produced by the company.
Black, J., concurred with Edwards, J.
Otis M. Smith, J., took no part in the decision of this case.