The petitioner, Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc. [Union], and Nassau County [Respondent], entered into a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] that was effective from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2004. Although the CBA expired, many of its terms, including the particular provision presently at issue in this CPLR Article 75 action remained in effect.
The Union filed a grievance asserting that the County had violated a provision of the CBA when it declined to credit negotiating unit members credit compensatory time off for who were required to report to work while other negotiating unit members were directed to stay home due to COVID-19 exposure during a state of emergency declared by the County in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately the matter was submitted to arbitration.
After a hearing, the arbitrator issued an award denying the the Union's grievance. The arbitrator determined that the County had not violated relevant section of the CBA because that provision did not apply in the instant circumstance. The Union challenged the arbitration award and commenced a CPLR Article 75 proceeding seeking to vacate the arbitration award. Supreme Court "denied the Union's petition, confirmed the arbitration award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding". The Union appealed the Supreme Court's decision.
The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v City of Long Beach, 214 AD3d at 736-737, noted that the burden is on the petitioner "to establish grounds for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence" as "Courts may vacate an arbitrator's award only on the grounds stated in CPLR 7511(b)". Pointing out that the Union only claimed that the arbitrator "exceeded his power", the Appellate Division opined that "Such an excess of power occurs only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power".
Further, the opinion notes that "'Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract and judgment concerning remedies" and cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award nor substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one.
Contrary to the Union's contention, the Appellate Division held that the arbitration award, which rested upon the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA, was supported by the record, was not irrational, and did not rewrite the terms of the CBA.
Finding that the Union failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award should be vacated on the ground that it was irrational and "An arbitration award is irrational only where there is no evidence whatever to justify the award, or where the award gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties", the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly denied the Union's petition, confirmed the arbitration award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.