Finding a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of a grievance and certain provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement is often the key to submitting the dispute to arbitration

The Yonkers City School District School Board [Board] and the Yonkers Federation of Teachers [YFT] were parties to a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] negotiated pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, the so-called "Taylor Law". YFT filed a grievance alleging that "someone disclosed confidential information to the public" related to disciplinary charges involving two tenured teachers represented by YFT filed a "contract grievance," claiming a violation of the Board's Code of Ethics and the relevant CBA, and ultimately demanded that the matter be submitted to arbitration. 

The Board objected to submitting the issue to arbitration and commenced a CPLR Article 75 proceeding seeking a court order to permanently stay the arbitration demanded by YTF. YTF, in response, filed a motion to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court dismissed the Board's petition and granted YFT's motion seeking to compel arbitration of its grievance whereupon the Board appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision. The court explained that "Public policy in New York favors arbitral resolution of public sector labor disputes," noting, however, that a dispute between a public sector employer and a public employee organization concerning a provision set out in a CBA will survive a motion to stay the arbitration if it fails the "two-prong test" used by New York State courts in resolving such matters.

The first test, said the court, is determining if there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance. If no such prohibition is found, the second test is for the court to determine if the parties did, in fact, agree to arbitrate the particular dispute.

The Board, in the course of its argument before the Appellate Division, asserted, for the first time, that the arbitration of YFT's grievance was prohibited by General Municipal Law §806 and public policy, contending that the Board had "reserved its right to adopt the Code of Ethics authorized by the statute."

With respect to the first test, the Appellate Division opined that the Board may raise such an argument for the first time on appeal, citing  Matter of NiagaraWheatfield Adm'rs Assn. [NiagaraWheatfield Cent. School Dist.], 44 NY2d 68. The court, however, rejected the Board's argument as being without merit, pointing out that the fact that a violation of the Board's Code of Ethics is a potential basis for disciplinary action does not render it nonarbitrable.

Turning to the second test, the Appellate Division said that the Board contended that the grievance is excluded from arbitration as there is no reference in the CBA to the Code of Ethics.

The Appellate Division rejected this contention as well, explaining that when a court is analyzing whether the parties did, in fact, agree to arbitrate the particular dispute, the court "is merely to determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA," citing Matter of Board of Educ. of Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v Yorktown Congress of Teachers, 98 AD3d 665.

The Appellate Division observed that it has held that the arbitration provision of the CBA at issue here was broad and found that there was a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the instant dispute, the disclosure to the public of confidential information regarding disciplinary charges against tenured teachers, and the general subject matter of the CBA, including the terms and conditions of employment.

Thus, said the court, it agreed with the Supreme Court's determination denying the Board's petition seeking a permanent stay of YFT's demand that its grievance be submitted to arbitration and granting the YFT's motion to compel the arbitration of its grievance.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06524.htm

 

Court's decision demonstrates why lawyers should encrypt e-communications

A court decision illustrating why lawyers [and others] should encrypt e-communications has been posted by Nicole Black, a Rochester, New York attorney, on her blog Sui Generis. The URL is https://nylawblog.typepad.com/suigeneris/2020/12/case-shows-why-lawyers-must-encrypt-e-communications.ht

The courts will not vacate an administrative decision unless the record shows that the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational or indicative of bad faith

The genesis of this CPLR Article 78 action was a school board's [Board] decision to decommission 20 school buses and to privatize portions of its bus routes because of budgetary issues confronting the school district. As a result, Board eliminated 20 school bus driver positions.

The employee organization [Union] representing the school bus drivers then initiated a  CPLR Article 78 action seeking a court order annulling the Board's action, contending that the Board's determination was arbitrary and capricious and was made in bad faith.

Supreme Court granted the Board's motion to dismiss the Union's Article 78 petition and the Union appealed. The Appellate Division, however, affirmed the Supreme Court's "judgment and order, with costs."

Addressing the merits of the Union's argument, the Appellate Division explained that "[i]n applying the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard ... a court inquires whether the determination under review had a rational basis." Further, said the court, the challenged administrative decision should not be disturbed by the court "unless the record shows that the agency's action was 'arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational or indicative of bad faith.'"

In this instance, opined the court, "the Board's decision to decommission 20 buses and to privatize portions of its bus routes because of budgetary issues facing the District, which resulted in its determination to eliminate 20 bus driver positions, had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious." 

Citing the Court of Appeals decision in Riverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 NY3d 219, the Appellate Division opined that "courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives."

Agreeing with the Supreme Court's determination to dismiss the Union's CPLR Article 78 petition, the Appellate Division denied the Union's appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06791.htm

 

An appointing authority's refusal to participate does not prevent the hearing officer or arbitrator from holding the hearing in absentia and issuing a decision

The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision [DOC] served a notice of discipline on an employee [Individual] setting out five charges against the Individual, each of which centered around the same operative facts -- that the Individual allegedly filed false or misleading incident reports and complaints against her supervisor, with the only difference in the charges being the person or entity to which the Individual's remarks were directed. 

Individual's collective bargaining representative [CSEA] filed a grievance  pursuant to the disciplinary grievance procedure set out in the relevant collective bargaining agreement [CBA]  and the matter was eventually submitted to arbitration, the final step in the contract disciplinary grievance procedure.

CSEA moved to dismiss three of the five charges and a filed a separate motion to preclude certain evidence from being admitted at the disciplinary hearing prior to the arbitration hearing. After allowing the parties to submit their respective arguments in writing, the arbitrator granted CSEA's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing one of the three charges CSEA asked to be withdrawn. The arbitrator also granted CSEA's motion to preclude the introduction of certain evidence in full.

DOC then advised the arbitrator that it would not appear for the hearing unless the arbitrator vacated her earlier decision and reinstate the charge she had dismissed pursuant to CSEA's motion. The arbitrator and DOC subsequently exchanged correspondence over a number of weeks in which DOC reiterated several times that it would not proceed unless all charges — including the charge dismissed by the arbitrator — were heard. Finally DOC move to have the arbitrator recuse herself from the proceeding.

The arbitrator declined to recuse herself, proceeded with the matter notwithstanding the absence of DOC and issued a decision and award without holding an evidentiary hearing. 

The arbitrator dismissed all of the surviving charges and directed that DOC reinstate Employee to her former position "with full back pay and benefits." DOC appealed the arbitrator's award.

The Appellate Division dismissed DOC's appeal, agreeing with the arbitrator that DOC "[did] not meet [its] burden of proof established in the [CBA]" since it "presented no evidence or testimony to prove that [Employee was] guilty of the alleged misconduct identified in the ... notice of discipline."

Finding that DOC "did not waive its right to challenge any of the issues by refusing to participate in the hearing and that the arbitrator exceeded her authority under the relevant CBA provisions by dismissing one charge prior to an evidentiary hearing, Supreme Court granted DOC's cross motion, vacated the arbitration award in its entirety and remanded the matter for "rehearing before a new arbitrator." CSEA appealed Supreme Court's decision.

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, holding that the arbitrator acted within her authority and in a manner consistent with the requirements of the CBA and the CPLR. Noting that public policy and the courts have long favored parties' efforts to resolve their disputes by means other than litigation, namely through the alternative submitting the issue to mediation or arbitration, the Appellate Division explained that "[T]he announced policy of this [s]tate favors and encourages arbitration as a means of conserving the time and resources of the courts and the contracting parties," citing Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 37 NY2d 91.

Further, declared the Appellate Division, an arbitration award "must be upheld when the arbitrator offers even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached," although it may be vacated when "it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power." Thus "[c]ourts must give deference to an arbitrator's decision and cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award, even if the arbitrator misapplied or misinterpreted law or facts," noting the ruling handed down in Shenendehowa Cent. School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 864], 90 AD3d 1114.

The Appellate Division then reversed the Supreme Court's the order "on the law" and granted CSEA's application to confirm the arbitration award while denying DOC's cross motion to vacate the arbitration award.

Another case, Aures v Buffalo Board of Education, 272 A.D.2d 664, presented a similar situation.

In Aures, the employer, the Buffalo City School District, failed to appear at an unemployment insurance hearing as scheduled. The hearing officer proceeded to hold the hearing “in absentia” and awarded unemployment insurance benefits to the claimant seeking unemployment insurance benefits. Rejecting Buffalo’s appeal challenging the award of such benefits, the Appellate Division ruled that the determination of the Unemployment Insurance Administrative Law Judge was binding on the parties.

The decision in Matter of the Arbitration between CSEA and DOC is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_07007.htm.

The exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to initiating a judicial challenge to a final administrative decision

Petitioner [Facility] in this CPLR Article 78 action to review a determination by the New York State Department of Health's Office of the Medicaid Inspector General [OMIG] appealed the order and judgment of Supreme Court dismissing Plaintiff's Article 78 petition.

OMIG had issued its final audit report of an assisted living facility's [Facility] Assisted Living Program applications for Medicaid reimbursement and commenced efforts to recover alleged over-payments made to Facility. 

Facility requested an administrative hearing to challenge OMIG's audit report's findings. On the same day Facility initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding contending that OMIG's report "was affected by an error of law and was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion" in an effort to obtain a court order annulling OMIG's final audit report and obtain certain other judicial relief. OMIG then cross-moved to dismiss Facility's Article 78 petition, arguing that Facility had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. 

Supreme Court granted OMIG's cross motion to dismiss the Facility's petition and Facility appealed that ruling.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's holding that Facility was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before commencing its Article 78 special proceeding. The court opined that "It is hornbook law that one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate [its  objection] in a court of law," citing Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52.*

Addressing Facility's contention that it had raised a constitutional challenge alleging that OMIG exceeded its authority and violated Article III, §1, of the New York State Constitution in arriving at its ruling, the Appellate Division explained that "A constitutional claim that hinges upon factual issues reviewable at the administrative level must first be addressed to the agency so that a necessary factual record can be established." Further, said the Court, "... the mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse the failure to pursue established administrative remedies that can provide the required relief."

Noting that Facility's constitutional claim hinged on factual issues concerning OMIG reaching its determination, the Appellate Division opined that such issues "must first be addressed in an administrative proceeding."

The Appellate Division also said it agreed with the Supreme Court's finding that Facility "failed to demonstrate that resort to an administrative appeal would be futile or that it would suffer irreparable injury based upon its conclusory claim of financial distress" and affirmed the lower court's order granting OMIG's motion to dismiss Facility's petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

* The Appellate Division, however, also noted that "The exhaustion rule, however, is not an inflexible one. It is subject to important qualifications. It need not be followed, for example, when an agency's action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power, or when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury" citing see Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_07054.htm.