The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's denial of the Respondent union's cross motion to vacate the arbitration award, explaining courts lacks the authority, to "examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator [, even if] it believes its interpretation would be the better one"*, citing Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL—CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72.
Noting the ruling in Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, [cert. dismissed 548 US 940], the Appellate Division said "It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited", although "CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) permits vacatur of an award where ... the arbitrator exceeds his or her power."
The Appellate Division then observed that the arbitrator exceeds his or her power where his or her award "violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or
clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power,"
citing Barone v Haskins, 193 AD3d 1388, appeal dismissed
37 NY3d 1032, lv denied 37 NY3d 919 [see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers'
Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 332].
The Appellate Division opined that in the instant matter "the arbitrator merely interpreted and applied the provisions of the relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA), as she had the authority to do," citing Lackawanna Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 3166, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 156 AD3d at 1408, and that the court was "powerless to set aside that interpretation even if we disagree with it...."
* The Appellate Division indicated that the plain language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] supported the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.