Labor & Employment Law

Only ?matters in dispute? may be considered by a Taylor Law ?Interest Arbitration Panel

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Only ?matters in dispute? may be considered by a Taylor Law ?Interest Arbitration Panel

Matter of Buffalo Professional Firefighters Assn., Inc., Local 282, IAFF, AFL-CIO-CLC v Masiello, 2008 NY Slip Op 00861, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Decided on February 1, 2008

The collective bargaining agreement between the Union representing City of Buffalo Firefighters, and the City of Buffalo expired on June 30, 2002. Despite the efforts of the parties to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement, several issues remained unresolved, resulting in the filing of a joint Declaration of Impasse on September 30, 2003.

Mediation did not result in a new collective bargaining agreement, however, and the Union thus sought compulsory public interest arbitration pursuant to Civil Service Law §209(4)(c).

On July 18, 2005, the arbitration panel issued its award providing for a wage increase and health insurance benefits. However, the panel noted that the City "agreed to withdraw its health insurance proposal (City Proposal #3) based on its understanding that it had reached an agreement with [the Union] on June 6, 2004, regarding health insurance."

Although the parties had signed a memorandum of agreement allowing the City to move to a single health insurance carrier whose premiums were based on an experience-rated plan for all of its employees, with the exception of members of the police union, the panel majority noted, however, that the Union subsequently challenged the validity of the memorandum of agreement contending that it was not ratified by its membership.

In response to the City?s efforts to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds that the panel majority failed to provide a specific basis for its findings and thereby exceeded its authority Supreme Court its petition and vacated the award.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court?s ruling in part. It held that the Supreme Court judge had erred in vacating the arbitration panel's award with respect to wage increases and sustained that portion of the award.

In contrast the Appellate Division sustained the lower court?s vacating of that portion of the award with respect to health insurance benefits.

The court pointed out that Civil Service Law §209(4)(c)(v) provides in relevant part that "the public arbitration panel shall make a just and reasonable determination of the matters in dispute" (emphasis added). As prior to the arbitration hearing, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement relative to health insurance benefits, that issue was no longer in dispute at the time the arbitration commenced. Although a dispute arose between the parties over the validity of the agreement, which dispute was acknowledged by the arbitration panel to be still pending, the court ruled that absent some evidence either that Union prevailed in its argument that the agreement was invalid or that it consented to have the panel decide that issue, health insurance benefits were not at the time the panel made its award a "matter in dispute," and the issue was not properly before it.

The full text of the decision is posted at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_00861.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 06, 2008 (boomark / email).