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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

In an Article 75 action to vacate an arbitration award, the moving party is required to prove its entitlement to a vacation of the arbitrator's award

In an Article 75 action to vacate an arbitration award, the moving party is required to prove its entitlement to a vacation of the arbitrator's award
Matter of New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. v New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., 2011 NY Slip Op 30254(U), Sup Ct, Albany County, Judge Joseph C. Teresi [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

In this CPLR §7511 action to annul an arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded his powers, Judge Teresi dismissed the Department of Correctional Services? petition because the Department ?failed to demonstrate its entitlement to annulment of the arbitrator's award.?

Judge Teresi explained that "An arbitration award may be vacated under CPLR 7511 (b)(1)(iii) as in excess of the arbitrator's authority 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."

The Department, said the court, did not cite either a strong public policy or irrationality as the basis for its excess power claim. Here the Department ?must demonstrate that "a specific limitation on ... [the arbitrator's] power enumerated in the arbitration clause itself has been violated."

In this challenge to the award made by the arbitrator in a ?disciplinary arbitration,? the arbitrator's power was set out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement as to ?determinations of guilt or innocence and the appropriateness of proposed penalties, taking into account mitigating and extenuating circumstances.? Further, the ?Disciplinary arbitrators shall neither add to, subtract from nor modify the provisions of the agreement... the disciplinary arbitrator may approve, disapprove or take any other appropriate action warranted under the circumstances."

After the hearing, the arbitrator found the employee involved ?guilty of negligently causing damage to a State vehicle, the only charge against her.? However, the arbitrator rejected the Department?s proposed penalty and, instead, imposed a "$250.00 fine.?

The arbitrator's guilty finding and fine imposition were not at issue. Rather, the Department complained that arbitrator's decision concerning expungement of material from the employee?s personnel records and retention of jurisdiction over the disciplinary action exceed his authority.

The court said that the CBA does not specifically preclude the arbitrator from taking either action and that the Department did not introduce any evidence that the CBA contains a specific limitation on an arbitrator's continuing jurisdiction to ensure implementation of a penalty.

Judge Teresi said that the fact that the CBA was silence on this issue does not constitute a specific limitation nor did the arbitrator's expungement remedy "add to, subtract from nor modify" the CBA? but, rather, in accord with the CBA, the arbitrator took "other appropriate action warranted under the circumstances."

As the Department failed to demonstrate its entitlement to annulment of the Arbitrator's Award, Judge Teresi denied its petition.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/pdfs/2011/2011_30254.pdf
.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 22, 2011 (boomark / email).