There is no statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition barring arbitrating the termination of an employee serving in an "exempt class" position

Teamsters Local 445, [Teamsters] initiated a CPLR Article 75 seeking a court order compelling the Town of Monroe Planning Board arbitrate its termination of the Board's secretary, a position in the Unclassified Service.*

The Town of Monroe moved to dismiss the petition, contending that:

[1] The dispute was nonarbitrable; and

[2] Teamsters failed to make a timely demand for arbitration.

Supreme Court denied the Town's motion and the Town appealed.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's ruling, explaining a dispute between a public sector employer and an employee is arbitrable if it satisfies a two-prong test.

The first test - the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance. If the matter survives the first test, the court must next determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute "by examining [the] collective bargaining agreement" [CBA] between the parties.

Finding that there was no statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating this dispute regarding the termination of an employee in an "exempt class", the Appellate Division, sustaining the Supreme Court's determination, concluded that the parties CBA indicates that the relevant CBA "authorized the Teamster to file grievances, and ultimately demand arbitration, on behalf of bargaining unit employees, including the secretary to the Planning Board, irrespective of her [jurisdictional] class designation under the Civil Service Law."

Citing Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 NY2d 132, the Appellate Division opined that where, as here, the relevant arbitration provision of the CBA is broad, providing for arbitration of any grievance involving "a claimed violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application" of the CBA, a court "should merely determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA." Assuming that the court finds that the matter is arbitrable, the arbitrator will then make "a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA, and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them."

Finding a reasonable relationship existed between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA, the Appellate Division declared that the issue of whether the Board's secretary was afforded tenure protections within "the scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA is a matter of contract interpretation and application reserved for the arbitrator."

Addressing the issue of whether the Teamsters' demand for arbitration was timely, the Appellate Division concluded that this was "a matter of procedural arbitrability to be resolved by the arbitrator," citing Enlarged City School Dist. of Troy [Troy Teachers Assn.], 69 NY2d 905.

Sustained the Supreme Court's determination denying the Town's motion to dismiss the petition, the Appellate Division dismissed its appeal.

* Positions in New York State's "Classified Service" [Civil Service Law §40] are placed in one of four jurisdictional classifications: the exempt class, [see Civil Service Law §41]; the noncompetitive class [see Civil Service Law §42]; the labor class [see Civil Service Law §43]; or the competitive class [see Civil Service Law §44]. Other jurisdictional classifications are the Unclassified Service [see Civil Service Law §35] and the State's Military Service [see Military Law §2].

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06535.htm

 

The New York State Department of Civil Service posted the following Position Classification Standards on the Internet on December 14, 2020

Classification Standard issued by the New York State Department of Civil Service on December 14, 2020 in PDF format. Click on the title of the position to download the standards for that title.

Associate Attorney (Health Care Regulation)

Associate Director & Director Veterans Home Nursing 1 & 2

Child Support Specialist Series

Compliance Assistant

Driver Improvement Examiner Series

Environmental Laboratory Consultant

Farmer

Health Systems Specialist Series

Library Technical Assistant

Medical Assistance Specialist Series

Motor Vehicle Field Operations Specialist Series

Pharmacy Consultant

Public Health Educator

Public Health Sanitarian Series

Teaching & Research Center Licensed Practical Nurse

The custodian of the records containing the names of retired police officer may refuse to disclose such names demanded pursuant to a Freedom of Information Law request

Supreme Court granted the CPLR Article 78 petition filed by the Empire Center for Public Policy [Empire Center] seeking an order compelling New York City Police Pension Fund [Fund], under color of New York State's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], to provide unredacted records disclosing the names of all police officers retiring during fiscal year 2017 other than the names which the Fund had earlier withheld in response to Empire Center's 2014 FOIL request.

The Fund appealed portions of the Supreme Court's ruling and the Appellate Division, unanimously modified the Supreme Court's order, on the law.

The Appellate Division first noted that Supreme Court had properly upheld the Fund's decision to refuse to disclose the names of 2008 to 2014  police officer retirees as [1] duplicative and, or, [2] time-barred.

Addressing the Fund opposition to disclosure of records providing the names of the retired police officer retirees demanded by Empire Center, the Appellate Division noted that the Fund had submitted affidavits outlining the dangers faced by police officers generally, and detailing the risks retired officers faced in particular, including thefts of handguns and assaults by persons they had arrested during their careers.

Citing Matter of Bellamy v New York City Police Dept., 87 AD3d 874, the Appellate Division opined that the Fund met its burden of showing a possibility that disclosure of [such] names could endanger the lives or safety of police retirees, as required to exempt them from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(2)(f)".

Public Officers Law §87(2), among other limitations concerning the disclosure of its records, provides that "Each agency shall, in accordance with  its  published  rules,  make   available  for  public  inspection  and copying all records, except that  such agencymay deny access to records or portions thereof* that:

 "(a) are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute; and

 "(f) if disclosed could endanger the life or safety of any person."

* Emphasis supplied.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06949.htm