Tests for determining the “arbitrability” of Taylor Law contract provisions

Tests for determining the “arbitrability” of Taylor Law contract provisions
Odessa-Montour CSD v Odessa-Montour Teachers Asso., 271 AD2d 931

The Odessa-Montour decision by the Appellate Division, Third Department applied the guidelines set out in the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Watertown City School District v Watertown Education Association, 93 NY2d 132. Watertown addresses issues involving demands for arbitrating alleged violations of Taylor Law agreements. The ruling also suggests that Watertown may not be as much of a closed door to obtaining a stay arbitration involving grievances arising from alleged violations of Taylor Law agreements as some may believe.

In Watertown the Court of Appeals held that any anti-arbitrational presumption implied by its previous ruling in the Liverpool case, [Liverpool Central School District v United Liverpool Faculty Association, 42 NY2d 509], is no longer justified in the public sector labor environment.

In applying the Watertown ruling in deciding Odessa-Montour, the Appellate Division signaled that Watertown does not mean that every grievance flowing from alleged violations of Taylor Law agreements are automatically arbitrable. The Appellate Division explained that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Watertown indicates only that the anti-arbitrational presumption is no longer valid -- two tests must still be met:

1. The court must be satisfied that the Taylor Law authorizes arbitration of the particular subject matter; and

2. The parties agreed by the terms of their particular arbitration clause to refer such matter to arbitration.

Unless both tests are satisfied, courts retain authority to issue a stay of arbitration pursuant to Section 7503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. How did the Appellate Division apply these tests in resolving the Odessa-Montour appeal?

The decision indicates that when Jerry Burris retired from his position with the Odessa-Montour Central School District he decided to terminate his individual health insurance coverage in the district’s health insurance plan. Upon his retirement, Burris’ spouse, who was also employed by the district, enrolled him for dependent coverage under her health insurance coverage.

Seven years passed. Burris’ spouse requested, and was granted, a leave of absence without pay from her position with the district. Burris asked the district to re-enroll him once again in its health insurance plan -- with individual coverage. The third party plan administrator, however, denied the request because Burris had waived his right to individual coverage in favor of dependent coverage at the time of his retirement.

The Odessa-Montour Teachers Association [Association] filed a grievance, contending that rejecting Burris’ request for re-enrollment in the plan constituted a violation of its Taylor Law contract. Eventually the Association submitted the grievance to arbitration in accordance with the contract grievance procedure.

The district objected and filed a petition pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules seeking an order barring the submission of the matter to arbitration. State Supreme Court Justice Samuel J. Castellino granted the stay.

The Association appealed, arguing that the district had agreed to arbitrate the issue of a retiree’s ability to change his or her health insurance enrollment. It made the following arguments in support of its claim:

1. The Taylor Law agreement allocates the costs of health insurance premiums between district and its retirees.

2. A clause in the agreement refers to the health insurance administrative manual and thus makes the health plan administrator’s decision to deny Burris re-enrollment ... is subject to arbitration.

3. The contract defines the term grievance as a claim by any teacher or group of teachers that there is a violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of this Agreement and the district concedes that retirees are included in the definition of teacher within the meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.

4. The collective bargaining agreement contained a broad arbitration clause.

The Appellate Division said that the question presented to the court to resolve is whether or not the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue.

The court said that [i]n light of the narrow arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement at issue and Burris’ status as a seven-year retiree who voluntarily opted out of health insurance coverage at the time of retirement, we agree with Supreme Court’s ruling that the subject dispute is not subject to arbitration under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.

Referring to Watertown, the Appellate Division observed that when considering a dispute as to whether a particular grievance is outside a collective bargaining agreement, 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 [collective bargaining agreement].

Its conclusion: no reasonable relationship exists between the subject matter of the instant dispute -- a retiree’s attempt to re-enroll in a health insurance plan, which he voluntarily opted out of seven years earlier -- and the general subject matter of the collective bargaining agreement.
.

Comic book law

Comic book law
Source: Administrative Law Professor Blog. Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, All rights reserved http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adminlaw/

One of the most entertaining blawgs I follow is LAW AND THE MULTIVERSE: SUPERHEROES, SUPERVILLAINS, AND THE LAW, writting by attorneys James Daily and Ryan Davidson. They examine the legal implications of comic book characters and situations, and sometimes similar movie characters and situations. Often I forward them to my faculty members as potential discussion or exam questions. Today's post is about administrative and criminal law in the discovery and distribution of a new drug.

Introduction:

Limitless opened this weekend, and is the subject of LAW AND THE MULTIVERSE'S second look at a movie. Spoilers to follow, as always.

The basic premise is that Edward Morra (Bradley Cooper) stumbles across a drug, “NZT,” which massively boosts one’s memory and intelligence. This enables him to write his unstarted-and-overdue book in a matter of days, learn any language in a matter of hours, and become a concert-level pianist in a long weekend.

So basically, what we’ve got here is every nerd’s fantasy: if I was only smart enough, I’d be able to get the money and the girl.

The movie has been described as “more interesting than it has any right to be,” which is about right. But there are a number of legal issues in the movie to talk about, mostly about the drug itself.

First, a high-level overview of how drugs are regulated in the US. For a drug to be legally prescribed or distributed it must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trials for new drugs must also have FDA approval. Some drugs are further restricted by the Controlled Substances Act, which establishes a schedule of controlled substances, some of which can be prescribed by a doctor with a DEA number and some of which are banned outright (e.g. heroin). Finally, individual states can add to (but not subtract from!) the federal controlled substances schedule. Now we’ll look a little closer at how all of this affects NZT.

Daily and Davidson have discussed other administrative law topics, including the Social Security System, air traffic control and the FAA, Superman's immigration status, and federal export control laws. Also torts, contracts, criminal law, Constitutional law, among other subjects. And the comments are usually thoughtful. Fun and educational!

EMM
.

The failure to properly and timely serve the agency issuing an adverse decision results in the court lacking “personal jurisdiction” to hear the case

The failure to properly and timely serve the agency issuing an adverse decision results in the court lacking “personal jurisdiction” to hear the case
Matter of Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7 v Westchester County Human Rights Commn., 2011 NY Slip Op 02009, Appellate Division, Second Department

Public agencies are not immune to the almost always fatal procedural omission of failing properly serve the necessary parties in an appeal of an adverse administrative ruling as is demonstrated in this Article 78 action.

Greenburgh Central Schools District #7 had filed CPLR Article 78 action to review the Westchester County Human Rights Commission finding that District had engaged in unlawful age discrimination in violation of the Westchester County Human Rights Law. The Commission had also imposed a monetary penalty on the District.

Supreme Court, Westchester County, after declining to extend the statute of limitations to file such an action, dismissed the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, pointing out that it was undisputed that the school district had failed to properly serve Westchester Human Rights with the notice of petition and petition in accordance with CPLR 312.

Further, said the court, Greenburgh “failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve, and failed to show that such an extension is warranted in the interest of justice.”

In particular, the court noted that Greenburgh had failed to demonstrate diligence in its attempt at service, and failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious argument in support of the petition.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02009.htm
.