Failure to preserve “First Amendment” argument in the course of arbitration bars appeal on that ground

Failure to preserve “First Amendment” argument in the course of arbitration bars appeal on that ground

Matter of Adolphe v New York City Bd. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 08203, Appellate Division, First Department

           

The Appellate Division ruled that Marsiste Adolphe improperly raised his First Amendment argument for the first time in his petition appealing an arbitration award before the court because he failed to preserve his First Amendment claim in the arbitration proceding. Further, said the court, were it to consider his First Amendment argument, “we would find it without merit.”

As to Adolphe’s claim that the hearing officer's decision was based on mistakes of law and a disregard of the evidence, the Appellate Division held that such an argument “is unavailing,” as these are not grounds for vacating an arbitration award set out in Article 75 of the CPLR.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08203.htm

Concerning politically motivated termination

Concerning politically motivated termination

Martin Gordon, et al., v County of Rockland, 110 F.3d 886

Allegations that an employee was dismissed because of political affiliation -- or lack thereof -- has generated many lawsuits.

The Gordon case is instructive because it sets out the views of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes New York State, concerning the standards to be applied in determining if a politically motivated termination violates the constitutional rights of the individual. 

The case arose after Rockland County fired three Assistant County Attorneys -- S. Martin Gordon, Eric Ole Thorsen, and Joel J. Flick. Alleging that their terminations violated their First Amendment rights to political affiliation, the three sued in an effort to win reinstatement to their former positions. A U.S. District Court jury ruled in their favor and the County appealed.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found an error in the lower court's procedure and initiated a de novo review of the constitutionality of the dismissals. A review de novo is, in effect, "a new trial" of the matter.

The key issue was whether or not the Rockland County attorneys' were sufficiently non-political to entitle them to First Amendment protection from partisan political termination.

Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that certain policy-making and confidential employees are exempt from First Amendment protection and can be lawfully fired because of their political beliefs.

Two seminal cases on the legality of politically motivated dismissals are:

1. Elrod v Burns, 427 US 347. In Elrod the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the politically motivated dismissals of employees in the Cook County (Illinois) Sheriff's Office was an unconstitutional interference with the employees' First Amendment freedoms of political belief and political association because the individuals terminated were not incumbents serving in "policymaking positions;" and

2. Branti v Finkel, 445 US 507. The high court said that the exemption allowing politically motivated dismissals extended to confidential employees as well as policymakers. But because Branti was neither a policymaker nor a confidential employee, he was entitled to First Amendment protection. The high court said that in evaluating whether it is permissible to dismiss an employee on the basis of political affiliation, "The focus ... should be not on the policymaking aspect of a plaintiff's employment, but rather on whether "party affiliation is an appropriate requirement" for effective job performance.

In the Rockland case, the Circuit Court of Appeals examined the nature of the attorneys' jobs and whether or not party affiliation was an appropriate requirement for job performance.

The Court considered whether its assessment of job duties should be based on the men's written job descriptions or the duties actually performed. Citing several supporting decisions, the Circuit Court said the assessment should be based on the power vested in the individual by law and the power that is inherent in the office. In other words, the job description is what counts in determining whether an employee has First Amendment protection against politically motivated dismissals.

Gordon specialized in real property law, and handled Sewer Commission affairs; Thorsen provided general legal services to the Highway Department and gave legal advice to the County's Planning and Parks Agencies; and Flick was an attorney in the Office of Community Development who advised municipal governments within the County as to whether their actions were in compliance with federal law.

The Court found all three positions encompassed serving as a legal advisor to a particular segment of county government, and representing the County in that capacity. This suggested they were policy-makers. The Court also analyzed whether the jobs were inherently political, using these questions as tests:

a. Is there rational connection between shared ideology and job performance?

b. Is the employee in an exempt position and thus not subject to "civil service protection" under Section 75 of the Civil Service Law? [The Court cautioned that it does not presume employees are not entitled to First Amendment protection just because they are exempt from civil service protection. Also, it should be remembered that Section 75 covers many public employees serving in exempt or noncompetitive class positions who are honorably discharged veterans who served in time of war or who are certified as "exempt volunteer firefighters."]

c. Does the individual exercise technical competence or expertise that permits them to make independent judgment on policy matters?

d. Does the individual control or supervise others?

e. Is the individual authorized to speak in the name of policymakers?

f. Is the individual is perceived as a policymaker by the public?

g. Does the individual influence government programs?

h. Does the individual have contact with elected officials?

i. Is the individual responsive to partisan politics and political leaders?

The Court said a factor supporting a ruling that the three were protected by the First Amendment was that each was not in charge of a large group of employees. But, the Court also noted, Gordon, Thorsen, and Flick all had technical competence or expertise and each was a consultant to a specific policymaking board. Also influencing the decision was the Court's view that "the Legislature, which has perhaps the best knowledge of the responsibilities involved in the positions it created, designated these positions both as 'policymaking' and as exempt from civil service status." Of primary importance to the Court in resolving the issue, however, the fact that each of the three attorneys was empowered to act and speak on behalf of a policymaker, especially an elected official.

Another aspect of the Rockland County case concerned the fact that the County Attorney was not elected but rather appointed by the Legislature, which is itself elected.

In the words of the Court, "all three plaintiffs advised the Legislature or Commissions set up by the Legislature or County Executive, both of which are elected." The Court concluded that each of the attorney's "advice to and representation of top policymaking officials in the County" justified their dismissal for political reasons.

Why? The Court said that "it is difficult to fathom how such responsibilities can be undertaken and done well without their "political or social philosophy [making] a difference in the implementation of programs."

Although the three attorneys contended that did not make policy, the Court concluded that this factor was outweighed by the evidence that they can act in the stead of the County Attorney. Further, the Court said that their claim that they "only gave legal advice" had been earlier rejected as justification for an employee coming within the Branti exception, citing the Third Circuit's ruling in Ness v Marshall, 660 F2d 517.

In Ness the Circuit Court decided that the positions of City Solicitor and Assistant City Solicitor were not protected by the First Amendment despite the solicitors' argument that they performed only "purely technical legal work." The Court said that the duties the solicitors could perform -- "rendering legal opinions, drafting ordinances, [and] negotiating contracts -- define a position for which party affiliation is an appropriate requirement."

A fair conclusion, according the Gordon ruling, is that these Assistant County Attorneys, "because of the discretion with which they are charged, and because of their authority to act on behalf of the County, are politically accountable to the Legislature and the County Executive such that their loyalty helps ensure that the mandate of the electorate is effectively carried out." The Court reversed the jury's decision in Gordon, Thorsen, and Flick favor, holding the three exempt from First Amendment protection against politically motivated dismissal.

Out of title work

Out of title work

Rausch v Pellegrini, Appellate Division, 237 A.D.2d 771

Muzzillo v Mt. Vernon Civil Service Commission, 238 A.D.2d 424

Muzzillo v Mt. Vernon City School District, 238 A.D.2d 425

From time to time an employee will complain that he or she is performing out-of-title work. Typically an individual who is working out-of-title, except in situations constituting a "temporary emergency," must be compensated at the appropriate salary or grade level or the out-of-title work assignment discontinued. The Rausch and Muzzillo cases involve allegations of out-of-title work.

The Rausch Case

To handle out-of-title work complaints expeditiously, the collective bargaining agreement between the State of New York and the Civil Service Employees Association includes a grievance procedure for resolving out-of-title work complaints.

Henry Rausch, an employee of the State Department of Correctional Services [DCS], complained that although he was being paid the salary of a Correctional Facility Food Administrator I [FFA I], as the result of a reorganization of DCS's food service system he was actually performing the duties of an FFA II. He filed an out-of-title work grievance, contending that he should be paid at the salary grade of the higher level position.

Rausch's grievance was ultimately rejected by the Governor's Office of Employee Relations on the grounds that his duties had been modified in connection with the reorganization of the food service operations in Correctional Services. He brought an Article 78 action challenging the administrative decision denying his grievance.

A State Supreme Court judge annulled the administrative determination, holding that Rausch had been required to perform out-of-title duties and the State, in turn, appealed.

Commenting that assignment of out-of-title work, other than on an emergency basis, is clearly prohibited by the Civil Service Law Section 61.2, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Section 61.2 provides that "no person shall be appointed, promoted or employed under any title not appropriate to the duties to be performed and, except upon assignment by proper authority during the continuance of a temporary emergency situation, no person shall be assigned to perform the duties of any position unless he has been duly appointed, promoted, transferred or reinstated to such position" in accordance with the Civil Service Law and the rules adopted thereunder.

Although the State contended that Rausch's duties had been modified and thus he could not be viewed as working out-of-title, the Appellate Division essentially found that Rausch was performing the duties that had been the responsibility of his former supervisor, a Correction Facility Food Administrator II, [FFA II].

The decision notes that while an FFA I is responsible for food service operations for an assigned shift, Rausch was made responsible for all food service operations at the Greene Correctional Facility, duties typically those of an FFA II, after his former supervisor was reassigned to another facility in 1991.

The Court concluded that the extension of Rausch's duties to encompass responsibility for the entire food service operation at the facility, i.e., responsibility for all food service on all shifts, seven days a week, constituted out-of-title work.

The Muzzillo Case

Muzzillo and three co-workers, employed as stenographers by the Mt. Vernon City School District, complained that they were performing out-of-title work. The Mt. Vernon Civil Service Commission agreed, ruling that the duties the four were assigned justified the reclassification of their respective positions to senior stenographer.

When the District declined to reclassify their respective positions, Muzzillo and her co-workers sued.

In one action Muzzillo sought a court order directing the District to comply with the Commission's determination and reclassify their positions to Senior Stenographer or, in the alternative, to desist from requiring them to perform out-of-title work. In a second action, Muzzillo attempted to obtain a court order compelling the Commission to "enforce its determination" regarding the reclassification of their respective positions.

The Appellate Division sustained lower court rulings dismissing the petitions in both actions.

As to their law suit against the District, the Appellate Division found that the School Board, by resolution, had directed the District "to cease and desist from using [the stenographers] to perform duties inappropriate to their title." This would appear to have provided appropriate redress concerning the issue of District's assigning "out-of-title work" to the stenographers.

However, even if the Board's action did not resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the four, the Appellate Division ruled that their complaint was properly dismissed by the lower court. The Appellate Division commented that the four had failed to exhaust their administrative remedy, noting that they had not "availed themselves of the grievance procedure set forth in their collective bargaining agreement."

As to the action brought against the Civil Service Commission, the Appellate Division ruled that the School Board had acted appropriately by adopting a resolution directing the District to refrain from having the four stenographers perform out-of-title work.

The Appellate Division said that Muzzillo failed to show that the Commission is under a legal duty to enforce compliance with its determination that the four were performing senior stenographer duties. In other words, the Commission did not have any obligation to require the District to reclassify the positions merely because it found that the incumbents had been assigned to perform out-of-title work.

Although the School Board could have elected to provide for such reclassification, the Court action signals its view that discontinuing the assignment of out-of-title work is an appropriate alternative to reclassification of the positions.

The Appellate Division commented that although the Commission had urged the Board to reclassify their positions to senior stenographer, it was not required to compel the District to do so. In this regard, the Commission could exercise its discretion as to the action it would take to resolve the matter. In other words, the Commission had no legal duty to compel the reclassification of the positions in question and the fact that the School Board had acted to bar future out-of-title work constituted an appropriate resolution of the complaint.

On another point, Muzzillo had cited Sections 100.1.a and 102.3 of the Civil Service Law in support of her efforts to have the Commission act. Section 100.1.a deals with the certification of payrolls and bars the payment of salary or compensation were the responsible commission determines that an individual has been employed in violation of law. Section 102.3 authorizes the appropriate commission to sue to enjoin "any violation of the Civil Service Law."

Assuming, without deciding, that these provisions are relevant in these cases, apparently the Appellate Division decided that the action by School Board to prohibit further out-of-title work by the stenographers resolved the underlying issues involved.

Public policy considerations affecting arbitration

Public policy considerations affecting arbitration

Sullivan County v Sullivan County Employees Asso., 235 A.D.2d 748

One of the issues in this appeal heard by the Appellate Division concerned Sullivan County's claim that the arbitration of a grievance as demanded by the Sullivan County Employees Association violated of "public policy considerations" and should be stayed.

The Association had demanded arbitration when the County denied a grievance based on the Association's claim that its action modifying a Taylor Law contract with another collective bargaining unit had triggered the "parity clause" in its agreement. The "parity clause" provided that if another bargaining unit negotiated a salary increase, those increases would be operative for employees covered by the agreement.

The Appellate Division said that to invoke a violation of public policy as justification for staying arbitration, "the violation must amount to the equivalent of a gross illegality." Although Sullivan County claimed that "parity clauses" were illegal, the Appellate Division noted that "such clauses are not per se invalid but require a case-by-case analysis."

The Courts indicated that the matter was not yet ripe for judicial consideration, commenting that if "the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement may offend public policy, such a potential does not mandate a stay of arbitration." Rather, said the Court, if that turns out to be the case, the remedy is vacatur (reversal) of the award.

Law enforcement personnel may be prohibited from associating with persons suspected of illegal activities.

Law enforcement personnel may be prohibited from associating with persons suspected of illegal activities.

Matter of Matter of Hastings v City of Sherrill, 2011 NY Slip Op 09484, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The City of Sherrill’s Chief of Police, James T. Hastings, was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law alleging that he was involved with "person(s) notoriously suspected of illegal activities … outside [the Chief’s] official duties." The Chief was found guilty of the charges and was terminated from his position.

The person suspected of “illegal activities” with whom the Chief was “involved” was the Chief’s 29-year-old son.

The Appellate Division, sustaining the City’s determination, ruled that the departmental regulations that the Chief was found to have violated “did not impermissibly interfere with his constitutionally protected right of intimate association.” Citing Morrisette v Dilworth, 59 NY2d 449, the court said that "[I]t is well established that it is within the State's power to regulate the conduct of its police officers even when that conduct involves the exercise of a constitutionally protected right."

The court also commented that “in light of the age of Chief’s son and the absence of any evidence that his son was mentally incapacitated, this case does not involve the constitutionally protected interest in custodial relationships between parents and their children.”

Other decisions in which a police officer was served with administrative disciplinary charges alleging he or she had  associated with persons alleged to have been engaged in criminal activities include Brinson v Safir, 255 AD2d 247, leave to appeal denied 93 NY2d 805; Richardson v Safir, 258 AD2d 328 and Delgado v Kerik, 294 A.D.2d 227.

The Hastings decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09484.htm

Law enforcement personnel may be prohibited from associating with persons suspected of illegal activities.

Law enforcement personnel may be prohibited from associating with persons suspected of illegal activities.

Matter of Matter of Hastings v City of Sherrill, 90 AD3 1586

The City of Sherrill’s Chief of Police, James T. Hastings, was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law alleging that he was involved with "person(s) notoriously suspected of illegal activities … outside [the Chief’s] official duties." The Chief was found guilty of the charges and was terminated from his position.

The person suspected of “illegal activities” with whom the Chief was “involved” was the Chief’s 29-year-old son.

The Appellate Division, sustaining the City’s determination, ruled that the departmental regulations that the Chief was found to have violated “did not impermissibly interfere with his constitutionally protected right of intimate association.” Citing Morrisette v Dilworth, 59 NY2d 449, the court said that "[I]t is well established that it is within the State's power to regulate the conduct of its police officers even when that conduct involves the exercise of a constitutionally protected right."

The court also commented that “in light of the age of Chief’s son and the absence of any evidence that his son was mentally incapacitated, this case does not involve the constitutionally protected interest in custodial relationships between parents and their children.”

Other decisions in which a police officer was served with administrative disciplinary charges alleging he or she had  associated with persons alleged to have been engaged in criminal activities include Brinson v Safir, 255 AD2d 247, leave to appeal denied 93 NY2d 805; Richardson v Safir, 258 AD2d 328 and Delgado v Kerik, 294 A.D.2d 227.

The Hastings decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09484.htm

Employer may recover tuition costs after teacher did not return from a paid sabbatical leave

Employer may recover tuition costs after teacher did not return from a paid sabbatical leave

Trumansburg Central School District v. Chalone¸ 87 A.D.2d 921

In the Trumansburg Central School District case the Appellate Division agreed that the District could recover the salary paid to an employee during a sabbatical leave when the employee failed to return as agreed.

In a similar situation, the State Comptroller ruled that a Village may adopt a resolution requiring employees who are sent to schools for specialized training at the Village’s expense in order to qualify for a promotion to reimburse the Village for the cost of such training if they resign within a specified period of time (Op. St. Comp. 82-4).           

Stopping the hearing creates a problem

Stopping the hearing creates a problem

Swanteson v. City School District of the City of New York, 88 A.D.2d 907

A person serving as a hearing officer may be tempted to terminate or “shorten” a hearing because one or more of the participants becomes unruly or abusive.

A hearing officer did stop the hearing before the employee had an opportunity to make a “statement” specifically permitted by the controlling rules of procedure because of “personal vituperation and ... abrasive behavior, despite repeated warnings.”

The hearing officer then sustained the employee’s unsatisfactory service rating, which was later affirmed by the Chancellor of the Board of Education.

Swanteson sued, arguing that the Board had failed to follow its own procedures.

The Appellate Division agreed and reversing a lower Court, holding that the failure to provide Swanteson with the “Review Format” was an abuse of the chairperson’s discretionary powers to make necessary “adjustments” in the format and insure an “expeditious and non-repetitious presentation ... denied (Swanteson) a substantial right.”

The matter was then sent back to the District with instructions that Swanteson “be given the opportunity to exercise his right to make a presentation and statement on his own behalf as provided in the Review Format.”

The termination of a hearing because of “disruptive behavior” apparently will not be considered a reasonable and proper exercise of discretion.

Tenured employee alleged to have violated the jurisdictions residence requirement is entitled to administrative due process prior to his or her dismissal from the position

Tenured employee alleged to have violated the jurisdictions residence requirement is entitled to administrative due process prior to his or her dismissal from the position

Matter of Tanner, 88 A.D.2d 661

An employee was absent for four months from her job. When she attempted to return, she was told her employment was terminated.

Two weeks later she was served with charges of misconduct pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. No hearing was held, however, as the employee was notified she had violated a county ordinance which prohibited a county employee from residing outside the county.

Tanner was also told she was not entitled to a hearing on the question her violation of the residency requirement. When she sued the Appellate Division said that Nassau County was required to reinstate her to her former postion and, further, ordered the County to pay Tanner more than three years of back salary (less other earnings).

The Appellate Division explained that although a municipality may require employees to live within the boundaries of the jurisdiction (see, for example, Section 30, Public Officers Law), it may not, without a hearing pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law (or its contract equivalent), terminate a tenured employee who violates the residency requirement,

A formal rule or regulation describing the alleged act of misconduct is not required in order to file disciplinary charges against an employee

A formal rule or regulation describing the alleged act of misconduct is not required in order to file disciplinary charges against an employee

Matter of Matter of Foster v Aurelius Fire District, 2011 NY Slip Op 09483, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Kevin Foster commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the determination finding him guilty of misconduct based upon actions constituting insubordination and failure to follow the chain of command. The penalty imposed: suspension and then reinstatement subject to a probationary period.

When Supreme Court transferred, the Appellate Division addressed the merits of Foster’s arguments “in the interest of judicial economy.”*

As to the merits of the issues raised by Foster, the Appellate Division rejected his argument that the charge against him should have been dismissed because it failed to specify any rule, regulation, policy or bylaw that he violated.

Noting that Forster had conceded at the administrative hearing that he was aware of Fire District's policies with respect to the chain of command, the court said that record establishes that Foster “deliberately circumvented that chain of command to undermine the authority of his superior officer.”

Citing Murphy v County of Ulster, 218 AD2d 832, leave to appeal denied 87 NY2d 804, the Appellate Division held that under the facts of this case Foster’s contention that “a specific act or misdeed must be embodied in a formal rule or regulation before it may serve as a basis for disciplinary action is unavailing."

The court also rejected Foster’s claim that the penalty imposed, which includes suspension followed by a probationary period, is "so disproportionate to the offense as to

* The Appellate Division commented that as Foster did not raise a substantial evidence issue, Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to it.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09483.htm

Independent contractor denied retirement system credit

Independent contractor denied retirement system credit

Senapole v. Field, 88 A.D.2d 1012

The Town of Colonie designated a person to serve as “clerk of the works” for a Town building project. When he was denied retirement credit (he was a member of the Employees Retirement System in connection with previous State employment) he sued the Town.

The Appellate Division held that as the “owner’s representative” Senapole served as an independent contractor and therefore he was not an employee of the Town.

Noting that Senapole had no superior who supervised his work, reported to the Town Supervisor regarding the progress of the project, and that he was not on the Town’s payroll (Senapole was paid by “voucher”), the Court concluded that he was not an employee for the purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law. 

Union gets employer's records under Freedom of Information Law

Union gets employer's records under Freedom of Information Law

Matter of Quirk v Evans, 116 Misc.2d 554

When the Office of Court Administration resisted a union demand for documents it wanted in connection with its challenge to job classifications, the Union sued.

Supreme Court said the Union had a right to the information it sought to obtain under the Freedom of Information Law.

OCA is not “a court” and its records are not automatically exempt from disclosure.

In the federal sector, the Federal Labor Relations Authority held that the Union had a “special status” as an employee representative and therefore is entitled to information normally outside the (federal) Freedom of Information Act (8 FLRA 108)

An arbitrator’s power to issue an arbitration award is limited to those powers set out in the collective bargaining agreement

An arbitrator’s power to issue an arbitration award is limited to those powers set out in the collective bargaining agreement

Matter of Matter of County of Putnam v Putnam County Sheriff's Employees Assn., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 09320, Appellate Division, Second Department

In this CPLR Article 75 action the County asked Supreme Court to vacate an arbitration award. The Sheriff’s Employees Association, on the other hand, cross-petition the court to confirm the award. 

Supreme Court granted the County’s Petition and the Association appealed.

The Appellate Division said that “A court may vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his power only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power.”

Here, said the Appellate Division, Supreme Court properly found that the arbitrator, in effect, “revised, modified, and altered the parties' agreement, which was specifically prohibited by the arbitrator's powers defined in the parties' collective bargaining agreement.”

Thus, ruled the court, Supreme Court properly granted the County’s petition to vacate the award and denied the Association’s cross motion to confirm the award.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09320.htm

A notice of claim served on a public entity must set out the basis for the claim sufficient for it to investigate the claim

A notice of claim served on a public entity must set out the basis for the claim sufficient for it to investigate the claim

Miller v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 08495, Appellate Division, First Department

In cases where the conduct complained encompasses a New York City Department of Education’s employee’s scope of his or her public employment, a notice of claim in accordance with Education Law § 3813[2] and General Municipal Law § 50-i is required as a condition precedent to commencing an action against the employee of the New York City Department of Education [DOE].

In an action that, in effect, claimed a tortious interference with contractual rights, the Appellate Division that Adam Miller did, in fact, filed a notice of claim which described in detail the time, place and manner of the conduct by DOE’s employee that allegedly interfered with his tenure rights and continued employment with the DOE, as well as his ability to enter into employment with other schools.

Citing DeLeonibus v Scognamillo, 183 AD2d 697, the Appellate Division said that although Miller had not used the words "tortious interference with contract," a notice of claim does not have to set forth a precise legal theory of recovery.

All that is required is that the notice of claim described in “sufficient detail the time, place and manner of the occurrence and a plaintiff's damages to advise the City of the basis for the claim so as to provide it with an opportunity to investigate” the allegations.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08495.htm

Court sets Taylor Law arbitration guidelines

Court sets Taylor Law arbitration guidelines

Board of Education v. West Babylon Teachers’ Association, 52 NY2d 1002

The Court of Appeals has set a number of guidelines concerning arbitration under the Taylor Law.

In Board of Education v. West Babylon Teachers’ Association the court indicated that a stay of arbitration would not be granted where the arbitration would not violate strong public policy and the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement are sufficiently broad and unambiguous as to encompass the subject matter of the dispute.

A stay is appropriate only where the disputed issue falls outside the contract’s arbitration provision or where arbitration would violate public policy (i.e., tenure decisions) and it is for the arbitrator to interpret the substantive provisions of the agreement regarding arbitration.

The case involved the abolition of several positions and a driver education program.