The collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the Union and the County, among other things, set forth procedures for resolving disputes relating to claims by the Union's members for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c.
Members of the Union [Claimants] allegedly sustained injuries or suffered illnesses in the course of performing their duties. Each Claimant sought medical treatment on the day of his injury or illness-causing occurrence. However, they did not seek further treatment and had no out-of-pocket expenses for the treatment received. Further, the Claimants missed no time from work, beyond the time spent seeking medical treatment on the day of his occurrence, and received his regular salary or wages for such time.
Claimants submitted claims to the County for benefits under General Municipal Law §207-c, which were denied on the grounds that each Claimant had incurred "[n]o los[t] time" and/or had not suffered a "disab[ility]," and had only received medical "[e]valuation" and/or "[t]reatment."
The Union filed a grievance with the County contending that the County had improperly denied General Municipal Law §207-c benefits to its members simply because they "did not lose any work time." Ultimately the issue was submitted to arbitration, and the parties agreed that the arbitrator would decide the issue of whether "the County violate[d] the CBA as alleged in the grievance" and, if so found, the arbitrator would determine the remedy.
The arbitrator decided that the County's denial of General Municipal Law §207-c benefits to the Claimants on the ground that "they missed no work time after receiving medical treatment violate[d] ... the CBA. The arbitrator found that the statute provides two distinct benefits — payment of salary or wages during the period of a individual's disability and payment of medical treatment necessitated by the injury or illness — and concluded that the statute "does not require a correction officer to miss time from work in order to establish entitlement to the latter benefit".
The arbitrator's award provided that Claimants "shall have their treatment and any work time they missed on the day of the illness or injury designated as [General Municipal Law] §207-c leave and benefits."
The County sought to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to CPLR Article 75 while the Union cross-petitioned pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm the arbitration award. The Supreme Court granted the Union's cross-petition and the County appealed, contended that:
1. The arbitration award violated public policy because it provided General Municipal Law §207-c benefits to claimants who were purportedly not entitled to such benefits; and
2. The arbitration award was irrational.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited", citing Matter of County of Nassau v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 150 AD3d 1230. Noting that "Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract[,] and judgment concerning remedies", the Appellate Division said a court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one.
The Appellate Division held that "contrary to the County's contention" with respect to public policy, the "alleged error with the arbitrator's award is distinct from the limited, narrow circumstances in which the public policy exception applies" citing Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 99 NY2d 1.
The court, however, held that "the County correctly contends that the arbitration award was irrational", explaining that an arbitration award "is irrational only where there is no proof whatever to justify the award".
In this instance the Claimants did not seek payment of salary or wages pursuant to the statute as they were each paid their regular salary or wages for the time spent visiting a medical provider on the date of the occurrence and missed no time thereafter. Nor did Claimants seek payment of, or reimbursement for, the cost of the medical treatment they each received on the day of their respective occurrences, conceding that they did not sustain any out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the arbitrator's decision to award the Claimants benefits under color of General Municipal Law §207-c was irrational, considering the fact that there was no proof that payment of wages or payment for any medical benefits by the Claimants were required.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.