If the CBA provides for the arbitration of alleged contract violations, unless there is a statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition barring such arbitration courts cannot stay the arbitration

If the CBA provides for the arbitration of alleged contract violations, unless there is a statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition barring such arbitration courts cannot stay the arbitration

County of Rockland v Civil Serv. Empl. Assn., Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 01815, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (CSEA), filed a grievance on behalf of one of its members in the collective bargaining unit and shortly thereafter filed a similar grievance on behalf of another of its members in the unit. Both grievances filed by CSEA alleged that Rockland County had violated certain provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] between CSEA and the County when it assigned per diem employees to perform certain work instead of giving those assignments to regular full- and part-time employees in the collective bargaining unit.

Rockland denied the grievances and ultimately CSEA demanded that the grievances be submitted to binding arbitration.

Rockland County filed an Article 75 petition in Supreme Court seeking a court order permanently staying the arbitration. Supreme Court granted its petition and permanently stayed the arbitration of the grievances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order.

The Appellate Division said that in the public sector context, determining whether a grievance is arbitrable requires a court to first determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance.

If the demand for arbitration meets this test, then the court must then determine "whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement."

The Appellate Division said that inasmuch as the grievances allege that Rockland County violated certain provisions of the CBA, and the CBA contains a procedure to arbitrate "any alleged violation, misrepresentation, or inequitable application of [the CBA]," the parties have agreed to arbitrate the grievances.

Further, noted the court, Rockland’s allegation that CSEA’s demand for arbitration was untimely is an issue to be resolved by the arbitrator and not the courts.

Thus, said the Appellate Division, Supreme Court erred in granting the County’s petition and permanently staying the arbitration. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_01815.htm

Removal from public office

Removal from public office

Warren v Bielecki, 2012 NY Slip Op 01037, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Although this action seeking to remove two persons from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 was dismissed as moot as the individuals targeted for such removal no longer held public office, the Appellate Division commented that had it consider the matter on its merits if would have dismissed the petition seeking such removals.

The court noted that based on the findings of fact made by a referee it had appointed, there were insufficient grounds upon which to remove either individual from office pursuant to Public Officers Law §36.

Removal from public officer pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 requires evidence of "self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_01037.htm

Lack of objective evidence of a disability supports rejection of employee’s application for disability retirement benefits

Lack of objective evidence of a disability supports rejection of employee’s application for disability retirement benefits

Hughes v Kelly, 2012 NY Slip Op 02393, Appellate Division, First Department

A New York City police officer, Jeffrey Hughes, filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits. He also filed an application for ordinary disability retirement benefits. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly rejected denied both applications and Hughes filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to overturn the Commissioner’s determination.

Supreme Court dismissed Hughes’ petition. Unanimously affirming the lower court’s ruling, the Appellate Division held that there was a rational basis the Commissioner’s determination.

The record, said the court, showed that after reviewing the medical evidence submitted by Hughes and the findings from its physical examinations of Hughes, the Medical Board concluded that "there was no objective evidence of a disability." Citing Matter of Appleby v Herkommer, 165 AD2d 727, the Appellate Division noted that “ It is well established that the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Medical Board.”

The decision indicates that the Medical Board found that the deficits in Hughes’ “range of motion” were attributable to "voluntary guarding" and there were no objective radiographic studies presented showing any abnormal findings. Further, said the court, Board considered evidence submitted by Hughes' personal physicians and provided a rational explanation for its medical judgment.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02393.htm