The Town of Clarkstown and the Town's Superintendent of Highways [Petitioners] commenced the instant CPLR Article 75 action in an effort to permanently stay a demand to arbitrate an issue submitted by the certified or recognized employee organization, in this instance the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. [CSEA].
CSEA contended that the Petitioners' appointment of an "external applicant" to a position in the Town Highway Department violated a provision in the controlling collective bargaining agreement [CBA]. The provision cited by CSEA provided that current employees of the Town, including Highway Department employees, would give "precedence over external applicants" in the appointment of applicants to posted positions.
When the Petitioners' appointing "an external applicant to a position in the Highway Department", CSEA filed demands seeking to have the matter submitted to arbitration on behalf of the current employees of the Town who had applied for appointment to the position. Supreme Court denied the Town's petition and Petitioners appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, with costs.
The Appellate Division's decision noted that:
1. "Public policy in New York favors arbitral resolution of public sector labor disputes";
2. A dispute between a public sector employer and an employee is arbitrable if it satisfies a two-prong test whereby the court must:
[a] first determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance and if the court determines that there is no such prohibition barring to arbitrating the issue and then:
[b] "the court must examine the parties collective bargaining agreement and determine if they in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute".
3. Highway Law §140(4) vests a town's highway superintendent with the authority to "employ such persons as may be necessary for ... the maintenance and repair of the town highways and bridges," and the CBA's provision for filling vacancies does not impede or usurp that authority to the extent that the provision in the CBA "does not require the highway superintendent to hire a nonqualified candidate".
Further, opined the Appellate Division, Supreme Court had correctly determined that the parties had agreed to submit disputed issued involving the terms and conditions of employment set out in the CBA to arbitration.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.