Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Alleged abolishment of positions in violation of a provision in a CBA held to be subject to grievance arbitration

Alleged abolishment of positions in violation of a provision in a CBA held to be subject to grievance arbitration
Matter of Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 v Village of Johnson City, 2010 NY Slip Op 02890, Decided on April 8, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

Supreme Court, Broome County, denied the Village of Johnson City?s petition to stay arbitration between the parties concerning the Village?s abolishment of certain firefighter positions. The Village appealed, contending that Union's grievance should not be submitted to arbitration because restrictions on the Village's right to abolish positions would violate public policy and interfere with the statutory mandate of Civil Service Law §80.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court?s determination noting:

The CBA provides that "[t]he Village shall not lay-off any member of the bargaining unit during the term of the contract" (hereinafter the no-layoff clause).

The CBA also includes a grievance procedure by which disputes "involving the interpretation or application of any provisions of [the CBA]" are subject to binding arbitration.

Here, said the court, the Village abolished the positions of six firefighters, alleging that this action was required by economic distress. The Union and the firefighters filed a grievance asserting that the Village's action violated the CBA's no-layoff provision.

The Appellate Division said that in deciding whether a grievance is arbitrable, "[w]e first ask whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance," citing Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273.

If, said the court, there is no such prohibition, "we then examine the CBA to determine if the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue.?

In this instance the Appellate Division found that the CBA's no-layoff clause is not subject to any prohibition against arbitration as a public employer does not violate public policy by voluntarily including a reasonable job security provision in a CBA.*

As to the second prong of the test, the Appellate Division said that the grievance is arbitrable if the parties have agreed to do so. Here the court found that the relevant CBA sets out a broad grievance and arbitration provision, whereby disputes "involving the interpretation or application of any provisions of [the CBA]" are subject to arbitration.?

As the current dispute depends on the interpretation of the CBA's no-layoff clause in order to determine whether that provision is applicable to the Village's action in abolishing six firefighters' positions, the court ruled that this was an issue that the parties agreed to submit to arbitration.

Thus, said the court, Supreme Court properly determined that the parties' substantive disagreement as to the meaning and application of the no-layoff clause is to be resolved by arbitration and dismissed the Village?s appeal.

* The Appellate Division noted that public policy limitations on arbitrability are rare and "almost invariably" involve a nondelegable constitutional or statutory duty,? citing Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 75 NY2d 660

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_02890.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 13, 2010 (boomark / email).