In this action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, inter alia,* the defendant, [University], appealed from an order of the Supreme Court denying University's CPLR §7503 motion to compel arbitration of the issue in contention and to stay the breach of contract action.
University had employed Plaintiff as a full-time faculty member. It subsequently sent Plaintiff a letter offering him an "administrative appointment," during which time Plaintiff was to be "on a leave of absence from (his) tenured faculty position" with "the right to return to (his) faculty position." University terminated Plaintiff from his administrative position but did not reinstate him in his "tenured faculty position".
Plaintiff then commenced the instant action, alleging, inter alia, that University breached the terms of the "offer letter" by refusing to reinstate him as a faculty member. University, pursuant to CPLR 7503, then moved to compel that the matter then pending before Supreme Court be submitted arbitration and to stay the instant action. University contended that its collective bargaining agreement [CBA] with the union representing the University's "regular full-time faculty members" required Plaintiff's issue be submitted to arbitration. Supreme Court disagreed and denied University's motion, whereupon University appealed.
Citing Lundgren v Kaufman Astoria Studios, 261 AD2d 513, the Appellate Division noted that "Generally, where a collective bargaining agreement containing a grievance and arbitration procedure ... a covered employee may not sue his or her employer directly for breach of the agreement, but must proceed through the union in accordance with the contract."
Here, however, the Appellate Division opined that "University failed to submit evidence that at the time [Plaintiff's] employment was terminated [Plaintiff] was a covered employee under the CBA", noting the CBA excluded administrators from being within the ambit of the otherwise relevant provisions of the CBA.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "contrary to the University's contention, the grievance provisions of the CBA, which exclude "substantive matters of appointment, reappointment, promotion, and assignment," do not evince a clear, explicit, and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate all disputes requiring the interpretation of the terms of the CBA." Thus, opined the Appellate Division, "Supreme Court properly denied the University's motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action", citing Wolf v Hollis Operating Co., LLC, 211 AD3d at 771.
* Latin: "Among other things".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.