Labor & Employment Law

Judicial review of an Article 75 petition to vacate an arbitration award is limited

Judicial review of an Article 75 petition to vacate an arbitration award is limited

Matter of Transport Workers Union, Local 100 v New York City Transit Authority, 2008 NY Slip Op 09807, decided on December 9, 2008, Appellate Division, Second Department

An arbitration award terminated the employment of a Transit Authority worker. The Transportation Workers Union filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75 to vacate the award. Supreme Court deciding that the arbitrator exceeds her power, overturned the award and directed the Authority to reinstate the worker with back salary and benefits.

The Authority appealed and the Appellate Division reversed the lower court?s decision and directive.

The Appellate Division said that the policy in New York is one of "supporting arbitration and discouraging judicial interference with either the process or its outcome." Thus Article 75 permits but a limited judicial review of an arbitration award and arbitration awards "may not be vacated unless it is violative of a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specific limitation on an arbitrator's power."

[N.B. Arbitration awards may also be vacated upon the court?s finding of corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award; partiality of an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, [except where the award was by confession]; or the arbitrator failed to follow the procedures set out in Article 75, unless the party applying to vacate the award continued with the arbitration with notice of the defect and without objection.]

In this instance the Appellate Division found that the arbitrator neither exceeded her power nor rendered a completely irrational award in deciding the arbitration.

Finding that the award was consistent with the evidence presented, which included the admission of the applicable federal regulations governing drug testing for transit employees and the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the Appellate Division reversed the holding of the Supreme Court.

The Appellate Division said that the ?Supreme Court erred by re-weighing the evidence, making new credibility determinations, and substituting its judgment for that of the arbitrator.?

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_09807.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on January 09, 2009 (boomark / email).