In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75, the Utica Professsional Fire Fighters'
Association [Association] appealed Supreme Court's order denying, in
part, the Association's petition seeking to confirm an arbitration award
sustaining a grievance the Association filed on behalf of two firefighters in
the collective bargaining unit concerning
The two firefighters, while off duty, requested emergency leave to attend to family emergencies. Although both firefighter learned of the emergency while off duty, both were scheduled to report for duty the following day. Although both firefighter were excused from their respective next day's tour of duty, Utica charged the missed time against the respective firefighter's compensatory time, rather than treating it as paid emergency leave, inasmuch as the requests were not made during the firefighter's tour of duty.
The emergency leave provision of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement [CBA] provided that "[e]mergency leave shall be granted during a
member's tour of duty in the event of an unexpected serious illness of his
wife, child, father, mother, brother, sister, mother-in-law, or father-in-law.
The member shall make every effort to return to duty as soon as possible."
A separate provision of the CBA provides that, where a grievance is settled by
arbitration, the decision of the arbitrator "shall be final, conclusive
and binding upon all parties" and "the arbitrator shall be strictly
limited to the application and interpretation of the specific provision of the
[CBA] and may not add to, modify or otherwise deviate from those
provisions."
The arbitrator concluded that nothing in the language of the
emergency leave provision required that the emergency leave request be made
during the member's tour of duty, interpreting relevant CBA provision "during
a member's tour of duty" was meant to allow the member to leave or miss
work to attend to a family emergency, and the phrase thus addressed the period
of time when the leave must be taken, not when the request must be made. Accordingly,
the arbitrator determined that the firefighters were entitled to paid emergency
leave for the time in question and directed
Supreme Court denied the Association's petition to confirm the
arbitration award the extent that it sought to confirm the arbitrator's
determination that the two firefighters were entitled to paid emergency leave,
holding that the arbitrator's "grant of an emergency leave request that
was made prior to a firefighter's tour of duty added a new clause or term to
the CBA in violation of the limits placed on the arbitrator's authority in the
CBA". The Association appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Appellate Division, reversing Supreme Court's decision and
confirming the award, noted that "[J]udicial review of arbitration awards
is extremely limited". Observing that "The court must vacate an
arbitration award where the arbitrator exceeds a limitation on his or her power
as set forth in the CBA", the Appellate Division, citing AFL—CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City
of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, explained that courts lack the authority to
"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". Here, opined the Appellate Division, "the arbitrator
merely interpreted and applied the provisions of the relevant CBA, as he had
the authority to do", and courts are powerless to set aside that
interpretation even if we disagree with it.
Confirming the arbitration
award, the Appellate Division held that the arbitrator's determination was not
irrational; nothing in the CBA suggests that a request for emergency leave may
not be made prior to the start of a tour of duty, and the arbitrator provided a
justification for his determination.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the
Internet.