Labor & Employment Law

Determining the timeliness of a grievance did not exceed the arbitrator?s authority

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Determining the timeliness of a grievance did not exceed the arbitrator?s authority
Fashion Inst. of Tech. v Union of Coll. Employees of Fashion Inst. of Tech., Local 3457, Am. Fedn. of Teachers, 2007 NY Slip Op 04355, Decided on May 22, 2007, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division affirmed a decision by Supreme Court, New York County, Judge Alice Schlesinger denying the petition filed by the Fashion Institute of Technology [FIT] seeking to vacate an arbitration award directing the school to reconsider its decision ?to discontinue [a] teacher?s tenure.?

FIT contended that the award should be overturned because the arbitrator?s finding that the teacher?s grievance was timely was incorrect. In essence, FIT argued that the time limitations specified in the collective bargaining agreement had not been met and therefore the arbitrator did not have any authority to consider the matter.

The Appellate Division said that ?[a]ssuming such argument was not waived by the school?s participation in the arbitration,? the arbitrator?s calculation of the time limitation was, as Supreme Court ?put it,? lucid and did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator?s power.

A court will vacate an arbitration award only where the award is violative of public policy, is irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator?s power. See Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NYPD 72, 79 and Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, for examples of these aspects of challenges to arbitration awards.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 14, 2008 (boomark / email).