A school district [District] challenged an arbitration decision which reversed its reassignment of one of its teachers [Teacher] represented by the Teachers' Association from a second grade class to a Kindergarten class. Ultimately, the arbitrator determined that District did not properly weigh the factors for reassignment, sustained the grievance and directed District to reassign Teacher back to a second grade class.
District subsequently commenced this proceeding seeking to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), contending that the arbitrator's decision was irrational and that he had exceeded his powers. Supreme Court, deciding the District had not satisfied its burden of proof to demonstrate grounds for revocation of the award, denied the petition. District appealed.
Noting that "Judicial review of arbitral awards is extremely limited" and a court may vacate an award "when it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator's power," the Appellate Division opined that "courts may not vacate an award based on their disagreement with the reasoning or outcome, even if the arbitrator made errors of law or fact".
Citing Matter of Douglas Elliman of LI, LLC v O'Callaghan, 220 AD3d 945 and noting that "an award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award", said that the party "seeking to overturn an arbitration award bears a heavy burden and must establish a ground for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence".
As stipulated by the parties, the issue for the arbitrator to decide was whether District had violated the relevant provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] when it reassigned Teacher to a kindergarten class.
The court's decision noted that the relevant provision set out in the CBA provides that the following principles shall be applied in the reassignment or transfer of teachers:
(a) the educational welfare of the child;
(b) the convenience and wishes of the teacher applicant;
(c) individual qualifications;
(d) instructional requirements;
(e) staff availability;
(f) the special needs of the school;
(g) the recommendations of the principal; and
(h) where the foregoing factors are substantially equal in the opinion of the superintendent, preferences in assignments or transfer shall be given to "the incumbent applicant with the greater number of years of service" in the school district.
In the words of the Appellate Division, the arbitrator ultimately found that, "[u]pon review of the record in this case, . . . it is clear that in making his decision to involuntarily transfer [Teacher] from second grade to kindergarten, [the principal's] attention was focused solely on criterion (a), the educational welfare of the child, and (g) the recommendation of the [p]rincipal."
In reaching this determination, the arbitrator also found that, when deciding whether to reassign Teacher to kindergarten, the principles of (b), the convenience and wishes of the teacher, (c), individual qualifications, (d), instructional requirements and (e), staff availability, were "lacking".
The court said it disagree with District that the arbitrator's decision was irrational because he based his decision on events that occurred subsequent to the decision to reassign Teacher for the 2021-2022 school year, explaining even if [the court] were to find that the arbitrator's consideration of subsequent events was erroneous, "it would not justify vacating the award" as the arbitrator's consideration of events subsequent to the superintendent's decision primarily affected the analysis as to the principles of (d), instructional requirements and (e), staff availability.
Further, the court said the arbitrator's determination that the principles of (b), the convenience and wishes of the teacher and (c), individual qualifications had not been sufficiently considered was based largely on circumstances known to the principal at the time of his decision and thus District had not demonstrated that "there was no proof whatever to justify the award so as to render it entirely irrational".
Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly determined that District failed to meet its burden of proof in demonstrating that the award was irrational and thus exceeded the arbitrator's authority.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.