An employee [Plaintiff] serving with a New York State agency [Employer] was served with a notice of discipline seeking to terminate Plaintiff's employment with the Employer based on 11 charges of misconduct and insubordination. Plaintiff, represented by his Union, filed a grievance. Ultimately the matter was submitted to arbitration.
The Arbitrator determined that the Employer followed the procedures mandated by the relevant collective bargaining agreement with respect to the issuance of a notice of discipline, rejected Plaintiff's challenge to the Employer's service of the notice of discipline as untimely, determined that termination of Plaintiff's employment was the appropriate disciplinary penalty under the circumstances, and denied Plaintiff's grievance.
Plaintiff then commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking a court order vacating the arbitration award. Supreme Court, among other things, denied the Plaintiff's petition and dismissed the proceeding. Plaintiff appealed.
The Appellate Division, noting that "Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited", observed that "It is well settled that a court may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power", citing a number New York State court decisions including Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, and Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, ALF-CIO, 6 NY3d 332.
In addition, the Appellate Division said "contrary to the [Plaintiff's] contention, he failed to demonstrate that the arbitration award violated a strong public policy, was irrational, or clearly exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power and failed to present evidentiary proof of actual bias or the appearance of bias on the part of the arbitrator, and said "the award discloses no bias".
Addressing the penalty imposed on Plaintiff, termination, the Applellate Division, citing Matter of Bolt v New York City Dept. of Educ., 30 NY3d 1065, opined that "the penalty of termination was not so disproportionate to the offenses charged as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.