ADR and Mediation

In action by plaintiff-employer seeking reversal of arbitration board's order finding that plaintiff owed defendants-pension funds $3.3 million in delinquent contributions arising out of plaintiff's use of improper workers on work project that should have gone to workers associated with instant pension funds, Dist. Ct. erred in finding that plaintiff had waived any objection to arbitration board's jurisdiction to rule on delinquency question, and that plaintiff was bound by said board's order. While plaintiff had submitted arbitration request to instant arbitration board to resolve delinquency question, plaintiff had not waived objection to board's jurisdiction to resolve said question since plaintiff had essentially withdrawn said arbitration request when it also submitted same delinquency question to different arbitrator, who had earlier enjoined arbitration board from resolving delinquency dispute. Moreover, Ct. found that where, as here, record showed existence of inconsistent arbitration awards, appropriate remedy required that plaintiff and defendants submit matter to single arbitrator for new arbitration to resolve which category of worker should have done work at work site.

Dist. Ct. erred in issuing injunction that prevented parties from participating in second arbitration of re-insurance coverage dispute, even though one member of second arbitration panel had been member of first arbitration panel that also considered instant coverage question, and even though second arbitration panel was set to construe confidentiality agreement obtained during first arbitration proceeding. While Dist. Ct. believed that member of prior arbitration panel could not properly be member of second arbitration panel because he was not disinterested, said member did not have prohibited interest in second arbitration proceeding merely because he had information regarding first arbitration proceeding. Moreover, said member did not otherwise have either financial or personal stake in outcome of second arbitration proceeding. Also, second arbitration panel had authority to construe confidentiality agreement obtained at first arbitration proceeding even though confidentiality agreement did not have separate arbitration clause since substance of confidentiality agreement was closely related to substance of first arbitration proceeding.

In action seeking resolution of purchase price on sale of insurance administration business, Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that arbitrator, as opposed to Dist. Ct., was proper person to determine whether plaintiff had provided sufficiently detailed disagreement notices so as to satisfy precondition requiring that parties arbitrate instant price dispute. Adequacy of disagreement notices was procedural question about condition precedent to arbitration, which was issue for arbitrator to resolve.