Arbitration Between City of Watertown v.

• Decision Date: 07 July 2017
• Docket Number: 873 CA 16-01727.
• Citation: 59 N.Y.S.3d 238,152 A.D.3d 1231
• Parties: In the Matter of the Arbitration Between CITY OF WATERTOWN, Petitioner–Appellant–Respondent, and WATERTOWN PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION LOCAL 191, Respondent–Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

152 A.D.3d 1231

59 N.Y.S.3d 238

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between CITY OF WATERTOWN, Petitioner–Appellant–Respondent, and WATERTOWN PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION LOCAL 191, Respondent–Respondent–Appellant.

873 CA 16-01727.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

July 7, 2017.

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Garden City (Terry O'Neil of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant–Respondent.

Blitman & King, LLP, Syracuse (Nathaniel G. Lambright of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent–Appellant.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., CURRAN, TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner, City of Watertown (City), commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of a grievance filed by respondent. In its grievance and demand for arbitration, respondent alleged that the City violated, among other things, the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by failing to maintain the requisite staffing levels of captains within the City's Fire Department and by requiring other members of the Fire Department to perform out-of-title work. Supreme Court denied the petition with respect to that part of the grievance alleging a failure to maintain minimum staffing levels, but granted the petition with respect to that part of the grievance alleging out-of-title work. The City appeals, and respondent cross-appeals.

"It is well settled that, in deciding an application to stay or compel arbitration under CPLR 7503, we do not determine the merits of the grievance and instead determine only whether the subject matter of the grievance is arbitrable" ( Matter of City of Syracuse [Syracuse Police Benevolent Assn., Inc.], 119 A.D.3d 1396, 1397, 990 N.Y.S.2d 391 ; see CPLR 7501 ; Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City Sch. Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 N.Y.2d 132, 142–143, 688 N.Y.S.2d 463, 710 N.E.2d 1064 ). " Proceeding with a two-part test, we first ask whether the parties may arbitrate the dispute by inquiring if ‘there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance’ ... If no prohibition exists, we then ask whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their [CBA]. If there is a prohibition, our inquiry ends and an arbitrator cannot act" (Matter of County of Chautauqua v. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 N.Y.3d 513, 519, 838 N.Y.S.2d 1, 869 N.E.2d 1 ; see Syracuse Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 119 A.D.3d at 1397, 990 N.Y.S.2d 391 ; Matter of Mariano v. Town of Orchard Park, 92 A.D.3d 1232, 1233, 938 N.Y.S.2d 399 ).

We reject the City's contention on appeal that arbitration of respondent's grievance with respect to the City's failure to maintain minimum staffing levels is prohibited by law. Under the first prong of the arbitrability test, "the subject matter of the dispute controls the analysis" ( Matter of City of New York v. Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL–CIO, 95 N.Y.2d 273, 280, 716 N.Y.S.2d 353, 739 N.E.2d 719 ). Contrary to the City's contention, a pending administrative proceeding concerning respondent's alleged improper practices does not preclude arbitration inasmuch as there is no indication that the "particular subject matter of the dispute" is not "authorized," i.e., not " ‘lawfully fit for arbitration’ " (id. ).

We reject the City's further contention that the parties did not agree to arbitrate the grievance. " ‘Our review of that question is limited to the language of the grievance and the demand for arbitration, as well as to the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom’ " ( Matter of Wilson Cent. Sch. Dist. [Wilson Teachers' Assn.], 140 A.D.3d 1789, 1790, 32 N.Y.S.3d 548 ; see Matter of Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. Superior Officers Assn., 71 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 897 N.Y.S.2d 811, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 712, 2010 WL 2265424 ). "Where, as here, the [CBA] contains a broad arbitration clause, our determination of arbitrability is limited to ‘whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA’ " ( Matter of Haessig [Oswego City Sch. Dist.], 90 A.D.3d 1657, 1657, 936 N.Y.S.2d 442, quoting Board of Educ. of Watertown City Sch. Dist., 93 N.Y.2d at 143, 688 N.Y.S.2d 463, 710 N.E.2d 1064 ; see Syracuse Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 119 A.D.3d at 1397, 990 N.Y.S.2d 391 ; Matter of Kenmore–Town of Tonawanda Union Free Sch. Dist. [Ken–Ton Sch. Empls. Assn.], 110 A.D.3d 1494, 1495, 974 N.Y.S.2d 679 ).

"If such a ‘reasonable relationship’ exists, it is the role of the arbitrator, and not the court, to ‘make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA, and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them’ " ( Syracuse Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 119 A.D.3d at 1397, 990 N.Y.S.2d 391, quoting Board of Educ. of Watertown City Sch. Dist., 93 N.Y.2d at 143, 688 N.Y.S.2d 463, 710 N.E.2d 1064 ; see Matter of Ontario County [Ontario County Sheriff's Unit 7850–01, CSEA, Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO], 106 A.D.3d 1463, 1464–1465, 968 N.Y.S.2d 749 ).

In its grievance and demand for arbitration, respondent alleged, in relevant part, that the City demoted eight captains and thus violated the CBA by failing to maintain the requisite staffing levels, and by concomitantly forcing other members of the Fire Department to perform out-of-title work, i.e., captain's work, without the appropriate compensation. Respondent's grievance specifically references articles 4 and 5 of the parties' CBA, which include provisions governing both minimum staffing levels and compensation for out-of-title work. We therefore conclude with respect to the appeal and cross appeal that the dispute is reasonably related to the general subject matter of the CBA (see Matter of City of Lockport [Lockport Professional Firefighters Assn., Inc.]...