An employee of a New York State agency [Appellant] commenced a CPLR Article 75 proceeding seeking to vacate or modify an arbitration award denying her grievance challenging charges of misconduct and insubordination that had been filed against her.
An Arbitrator had found Appellant guilty of the disciplinary charges and that imposing the penalty of termination from her position was appropriate.
Supreme Court denied Appellant's challenge to the arbitration award and penalty imposed and Appellant appealed the Supreme Court's decision.
The Appellate Division, noting that "Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited,* explained that "Where, as here, an arbitration award was rendered after a consensual arbitration process pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, the award may not be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his or her power unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power".
In this instance, said the court, Appellant failed to demonstrate that the arbitration award:
[1] Violated a strong public policy;
[2] Was irrational; or
[3] Clearly exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power.
The court also noted that, contrary to Appellant's contention, the Arbitrator properly considered the Appellant's "entire record of employment in determining a penalty", and that the penalty of termination was not so disproportionate to the offenses charged as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness**.
Further, said the Appellate Division, Appellant "waived her contention that the Arbitrator was not impartial by failing to raise this contention upon becoming aware of the basis for the alleged bias or partiality" and, citing Matter of Piller v Schwimmer, 135 AD3d 766 and Matter of Atlantic Purch., Inc. v Airport Props. II, LLC, 77 AD3d 824, "continued to participate in the [arbitration] proceeding."
* See Matter of Barella v State of New York Off. of Mental Health, 175 AD3d 495, citing Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471.
** See Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.
Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.
A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances -- A NYPPL e-book focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service of the State of New York and its political subdivisions in instances where the employee has been found guilty of disciplinary charges. For more information and access to a free excerpt of the material presented in this e-book, click on the URL set out below: http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html