Considering employee sick leave bank requests
Pocantico Hills CSD v Teachers Assoc., App. Div., 2nd Dept. 264 AD2d 397, Motion to appeal denied, 94 NY2d 759
The Taylor Law Agreement between the Pocantico Hills Central School District and the Pocantico Hills Teachers Association provided for a sick leave bank for use by teachers absent as a result of an “extended, serious illness or serious injury.”
Two teachers applied for contract sick leave bank credits in connection with their respective “extended post-pregnancy leave.” The district and the association deadlocked over the question of approving the use of sick leave bank credits for this purpose. The Taylor Law agreement provided that in the event the parties could not agree with respect to a request for use of sick leave bank credits, the question was to be referred to a mutually agreed upon physician. The physician selected by the parties concluded that the teachers’ pregnancies did not constitute “extended, serious illness or serious injury” within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the agreement.
Relying on this determination, the district denied both applications to use the sick leave bank for these pregnancy-related absences.
The association demanded that the issue be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the contract grievance procedure. The district objected and obtained an order from a State Supreme Court judge staying the arbitration [see Article 75, Civil Practice Law and Rules].
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination. It said that the teachers’ eligibility for sick leave bank credits had been determined in accordance with the tie-breaking provisions of the agreement.
The court ruled that the grievance procedure, which expressly limited arbitration to grievances arising from the violation of specific terms and provisions of the agreement, was not available to the association in this instance.
The Appellate Division said that under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court judge had correctly determined that the denials of the applications filed by the two teachers fell outside the arbitration provisions of the agreement and thus its issuing a stay was appropriate.
Two additional arguments were advanced by the Association in support of its position. It contended that:
1. The provisions of the agreement relating to the sick leave bank are ill-suited to pregnancy-related leaves; and/or
2. Special consideration should be given to pregnancy-related leave requests.”
The Appellate Division rejected both of the arguments, commenting that these constituted “a matter for negotiation, not arbitration.”
If, on the other hand, the physician determined that the teacher suffered an “extended, serious illness or serious injury,” presumably the individual would be deemed eligible for sick leave bank credits notwithstanding the fact that the particular medical condition in question was pregnancy-related.
.NYPPL