New York Public Personnel Law: Alleged violations of a "Memorandum of Understanding" to a Taylor Law agreement may not be subject to contract grievance procedures

August 17, 2010

Alleged violations of a "Memorandum of Understanding" to a Taylor Law agreement may not be subject to contract grievance procedures

Alleged violations of a "Memorandum of Understanding" to a Taylor Law agreement may not be subject to contract grievance procedures
Pine Plains CSD v Federation of Teachers, 248 A.D.2d 612

It is not unusual for parties to a collective bargaining agreement to agree to provisions set out in a “supplemental agreement” or to sign a “memorandum of understanding” in the course of collective bargaining pursuant to the Taylor Law.

Typically this device is used to set out provisions that although they have been agreed upon, for some reason, one or both of the parties do not wish to have the item set out in the collective bargaining agreement. In other instances, the supplemental agreement or memorandum of understanding is used to explain or modify a term or contract provision contained in the agreement or provide something after negotiations have been completed.

The Pine Plains Central School District case considers a significant issue: how does a party resolve a dispute concerning a provision contained in a supplemental agreement or in a memorandum of understanding?

The case arose when the Pine Plains Federation of Teachers demanded that its grievance concerning an alleged violation of a provision contained in a “supplemental memorandum of agreement” between the parties be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement in chief between the District and the Federation.

The District won a stay of arbitration of the alleged violation on the grounds that the supplement did not contain an arbitration clause nor was the contract grievance/arbitration procedure incorporated by reference into the supplement agreement.

According to the ruling by the Appellate Division, unless there is an arbitration process specifically set out in a supplement to a collective bargaining agreement or a memorandum of understanding, or the supplement or memorandum specifically states that the collective bargaining agreement in chief's arbitration procedure will be used to resolve disputes arising under it, a party cannot demand that the issue be submitted to arbitration as a matter of right.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.

NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.