An alleged ambiguity in the collective bargaining agreement concerning the applicability of a provision constitutes a matter of contract interpretation and is for the arbitrator to resolve

To contact us Click HERE

An alleged ambiguity in the collective bargaining agreement concerning the applicability of a provision constitutes a matter of contract interpretation and is for the arbitrator to resolveBoard of Educ. of Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v YorktownCongress of Teachers, 2012 NY Slip Op 06023, Appellate Division, SecondDepartment
Yorktown Central School District filed an Article 75petition seeking a permanent stay arbitration of a claim by a teacher forapproval of certain graduate credits for compensation pursuant to a collectivebargaining agreement. Supreme Court granted the school districts petition andthe Yorktown Congress of Teachers appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling “onthe law” and directed that the parties proceed to arbitration.
The court noted that the relevant collective bargainingagreement included [1] an annex to the salary schedule providing for paymentsfor approved graduate credits and [2] a “four-step grievance* procedureculminating in binding arbitration.”
The Appellate Division explained that in determining whethera dispute between a public sector employer and employee organization on behalf of an employee is arbitrable,** a courtmust first determine whether there is a statutory, constitutional or publicpolicy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance. If it finds no suchprohibition against arbitration, the court must examine the parties' collectivebargaining agreement to determine "whether the parties in fact agreed toarbitrate the particular dispute."
Finding that arbitration of the instant dispute was notprohibited by public policy or statute, including those provisions of theEducation Law permitting any party aggrieved by a determination of a board ofeducation to appeal to the Commissioner of Education nor by the power of aschool board to manage the educational affairs of the school district, theAppellate Division found that there was a reasonable relationship between thesubject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA – i.e.,a claim for approval of graduate credits for compensation and the generalsubject matter of the CBA.
Noting that “some uncertainty exists as to whether thesubject matter of the dispute is encompassed within the provision governingpayments for approved graduate credits or the exclusion from arbitration ofmatters involving the Board's discretion,” the Appellate Division said that anyalleged ambiguity in the CBA "regarding the coverage of any applicable provisionis . . . a matter of contract interpretation for the arbitrator toresolve."
Accordingly, the Appellate Division granted the YoungstownCongress of Teacher’s cross petition to compel arbitration.
* In this instance the CBA defined a "grievance" as "anydispute or claim by either party . . . arising out of or in connection withthis Agreement" other than matters that involved [a] the School Board's exercisingits discretion, [b] a nonapproval of tenure decision; and [c] matters where a review wasprescribed by law.
** Subject limited exceptions, as a general rule only the certified or recognized employee organization may demand arbitration of a grievance.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06023.htm