Everyone should meet and hear the evidence, but the report of a majority is valid, unless the minority has been excluded from the deliberations through no fault of your own. (Id. on pp. 238-239.) The tribunal ruled that union arbitrators were excluded from deliberations through the impartial arbitrator and corporate arbitrator procedure. (Id. on page 239.) In Turner v. Cox (1961) 196 Cal. App. 2d 596 [16 Cal. Rptr.
644], the Tribunal considered the effect of former § 1286 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which pre-stated that “all arbitrators sit at the hearing of the case, unless all parties agree, by written consent, to continue the hearing with a smaller number”. In Turner, one of the arbitrators was absent from a meeting called for the award of the arbitral award. The evidence had already been heard by all the arbitrators. The tribunal found that, since all the evidence had been heard by the arbitrator, [65 Cal.3d 448], the meeting called to render an arbitral award was not a “hearing of the case” and the procedure followed by the arbitrators in awarding the award was not contrary to section code. (Id. at pp. 600-601.) The tribunal decided, since the arbitral party to the written agreement pre-held that “if there are three (arbitrators), the decision of two of any is binding” (p. 598) that the lower court did not correctly set aside the arbitral award. An arbitral award has been made in favour of the Union. Subsequently, the company filed an application in San Francisco Superior Court to set aside the arbitration award and order a new hearing. The petition is based on the argument that Gerald D. Marcus, the chairman of the arbitration body, exceeded his powers under the explicit provisions of the agreement between the European Union and the company to make his observations and his arbitral award and that that award cannot be corrected without prejudice to the merits of the decision on the controversy.
The Union has filed a request for confirmation of the arbitral award. After a hearing, the court upheld the arbitral award. The company appealed. On 4 January 1971, the company and the trade union concluded a written agreement “to facilitate the peaceful adaptation of differences which may arise from time to time between them”, which provides for an appeal procedure involving arbitration proceedings. The company is active in the tree cutting industry in California, Arizona and Nevada.. . . .