Summary
recognizing that “[t]he public policy of this State is to give effect to arbitration agreements,” and providing that “[w]here the parties by contract contemplate the settlement of disputes by arbitration, every reasonable intendment will be made in favor of the agreement.”
Summary of this case from Wert v. Manorcare of Carlisle Pa, LLCOpinion
January 13, 1958.
March 17, 1958.
Arbitration — Award — Finality.
In this action of assumpsit by a former employe against his former employer, in which plaintiff claimed that he was a third party beneficiary of a collective bargaining agreement between the defendant and the union of which plaintiff was a member and that he had been discharged in violation of this agreement; and it appeared from the pleadings that the collective bargaining agreement provided for a grievance and arbitration procedure and that an impartial arbitrator selected pursuant to the agreement had found that the discharge of the plaintiff was justified and that he was not entitled to reinstatement, it was Held that (1) the decision of the arbitrator was conclusive and (2) the court below had properly entered judgment on the pleadings for the defendant.
Argued January 13, 1958. Before JONES, C. J. BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, JONES and COHEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 266, Jan. T., 1957, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1956, No. 3555, in case of Anthony Capecci v. Joseph Capecci, Inc. Judgment affirmed.
Same case in court below: 11 Pa. D. C.2d 459.
Assumpsit.
Order entered granting defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, opinion by REIMEL, J. Plaintiff appealed.
Norman Shigon, for appellant.
Park B. Dilks, Jr., with him Souser, Schumacker, Kleeb Lunkenheimer, for appellee.
The judgment of the Court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge REIMEL of the Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, reported in 11 Pa. D. C.2d 459.