HIROTAKA MIYOI v. GOLD BOND STAMP COMPANY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT TRUST AND OTHERS

Minnesota Supreme Court1972-03-17No. No. 43498

293 Minn. 376196 N.W.2d 309

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's orders staying the plaintiff's action and requiring arbitration to proceed are not final or appealable orders under the Uniform Arbitration Act and the rules of civil appellate procedure; therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

An employee whose job was terminated for alleged dishonesty sought to block an arbitration proceeding required by his employer's retirement plan. He argued he had never agreed to arbitrate disputes under the plan and filed suit in district court. The district court stayed his legal action and ordered the arbitration to proceed, allowing him to participate in naming an arbitrator. The employee appealed these orders to the appellate court, claiming the district court lacked authority to compel arbitration.

The appellate court examined whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It concluded that the district court's orders were not final orders capable of being appealed under the applicable rules. The court noted that the Uniform Arbitration Act lists specific types of arbitration-related orders that may be appealed, and an order compelling arbitration to proceed is not among them. The employee retained the right to challenge the arbitration outcome itself by appealing any adverse arbitration award after it was issued.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Appealability of orders staying litigation pending arbitration
Whether an employee must comply with arbitration requirements in a retirement plan despite claiming no arbitration agreement existed
Scope of appealable orders under the Uniform Arbitration Act

Procedural posture

The plaintiff appealed from district court orders staying his action and directing arbitration to proceed under the retirement plan's terms, challenging the court's authority to compel arbitration.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Per Curiam.

This matter is before the court on a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the orders appealed from are not final or appealable orders.

Plaintiff was an employee of Premium Service Corporation (formerly Gold Bond Stamp Company). This corporation, prior to plaintiff’s employment, had established a noncontributory retirement trust plan for the benefit of its employees. Defendants are the trust and trustees thereof. This retirement plan and trust agreement provide in effect that, should any employee be discharged for dishonesty, the amount standing to his credit would be forfeited subject to an arbitration proceeding for determination of whether the employer had just cause for the discharge.

Plaintiff’s employment was terminated for alleged dishonesty to his employer. A notice was sent to him by the trustee-defendants that they had determined that there was cause for such discharge and that, unless plaintiff appealed for arbitration “in accordance with the terms of the Plan” and succeeded in reversing the trustees’ determination, he would forfeit all amounts due him under the plan.

Plaintiff brought this suit to recover the amount allegedly due him under the plan and to enjoin the arbitration proceeding on the grounds that he had not agreed to arbitrate any dispute arising under the plan. At the hearing on the application for stay of the arbitration proceeding, plaintiff invoked the Uniform Arbitration Act, Minn. St. c. 572. Following that hearing, in which defendants moved to dismiss a temporary ex parte order restraining the arbitration proceeding, the court, on November 5 and November 9, 1971, issued orders staying plaintiff’s action until the arbitration could be completed; permitting plaintiff to name an independent arbiter; and vacating the temporary restraining order.

Plaintiff appeals to this court from those orders pursuant to Rule 103.03, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

The orders of the district court appealed from are not appealable orders since they are not final orders. Plaintiff’s appointment of an arbiter will not constitute a waiver of his claim that there was no agreement to arbitrate and that the matter is consequently nonarbitrable. An appeal may be taken from the arbitration award should-it be adverse to plaintiff’s position. Minn. St. 572.26, subd. 1. In a somewhat comparable matter the court in Johnson v. Village of Plymouth, 281 Minn. 232, 161 N. W. 2d 306 (1968), dismissed an appeal from an order appointing an employer’s representative on an adjustment panel established pursuant to Minn. St. 179.57, subd. 2, on the grounds the order was not a final or appealable order.

Chapter 572 specifically lists orders which are appealable. That list does not include an order denying a stay of arbitration sought under the Uniform Arbitration Act.

Rule 105 permits a discretionary review by this court. We are not inclined to grant a review under this rule as the order appealed from does not expose plaintiff to irreparable damage. For the reasons herein stated, the motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted. No costs are allowed to either party.

Appeal dismissed.