Limiting the pool of eligibles for a promotion examination to enhance the chances of provisional employees for permanent appointment violates Article VI, §6, of the State Constitution

To contact us Click HERE
Limiting the pool of eligibles for a promotionexamination to enhance the chances of provisional employees for permanent appointment violates Article VI, §6, of theState Constitution
Ulster County Sheriff's Employees Assn., CWA Local 1105 (Ulster CountySheriff's Dept.), 2012 NY Slip Op 08213, Appellate Division, Third Department
This appeal flows from Supreme Court’s granting the Ulster County Sheriff’s Employees Association’s  CPLR 7510 petition seeking to confirman arbitration award.
The Association, in response to Ulster County’s changing the minimum qualifications for eligibility for the promotion examination to Assistant Warden by excluding correction sergeants* as eligible employees for the examination, had filed a contract grievance contendingthat this change by the county personnel officer violated the parties'collective bargaining agreement [CBA]. 
Ultimately the grievance was submitted toarbitration.
The question presented to the arbitrator: "Did theCounty violate the preamble and/or Article 5 of the CBA when it excluded [thoseserving in the] title of correction sergeant from being eligible to take the2009 exam for Assistant Warden? If so, what shall be the remedy?"
The arbitrator found that the County violated the CBA “whenit excluded correction sergeants from the eligible list” and, as the remedy,  
[1] Directed thatthe results of the 2009 exam be annulled;** and
[2] Directed that a new exam be given forwhich "correction sergeants with 36 months of permanent competitive class statuswould be eligible."
In sustaining the Supreme Court's confirming the arbitrator’s award, the Appellate Divisionapplied the following guidelines:
1. In circumstances when the parties agree to submit theirdispute to an arbitrator, courts generally play a limited role;
2. An arbitrator's award should not be vacated for errors oflaw and fact committed by the arbitrator and the courts should not assume therole of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice; and.
3. A court may vacate an arbitration award only if itviolates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds aspecifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power."
The court rejected the County’s argument that thearbitrator's award violated public policy and that it conflicted with the Civil ServiceLaw because it “unduly interferes with the authority of the County's personnelofficer to establish minimum qualifications for positions in the Sheriff'sDepartment.”
The Appellate Division explained that an arbitration awardmay only be vacated on public policy grounds [1] "where a court canconclude, without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis, that alaw prohibits, in an absolute sense, the particular matters to be decided, or [2] that the award itself violates a well-defined constitutional, statutory orcommon law of this State" and [3] "judicial restraint under thepublic policy exception is particularly appropriate where, as here, the caseinvolves arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement."
Noting that the County's personnel officer had the authorityto establish minimum qualifications for promotion to job titles in countygovernment, the Appellate Division said that it did not follow that suchdeterminations are immune from oversight or review.
In this instance, said the court, the arbitrator determinedthat the change was made to increase the chances that two correctionlieutenants who had been provisionally appointed as assistant wardens wouldultimately receive permanent appointments to that position.
The court said the it agreed with the arbitrator’sconclusion that "[t]he decision to eliminate [c]orrection [s]ergeants fromthe pool of candidates [was] solely to increase the odds of the provisionalcandidates [being appointed permanently to the position] runs afoul of the competitive process envisioned by the CivilService Law" and violated the State's constitutional provision requiringthat civil service positions be filled "according to merit andfitness," citing Article V, §6, of the State Constitution.
* This change resulted inlimiting eligibility for the promotion examination to correctionlieutenants having at least 12 months of permanent service in the title.
** Presumably this directiveresulted in the vacating of all permanent appointments made from the eligible list resulting from the 2009 examination for Assistant Warden.  The decision isposted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08213.htm