Board of Ed., Great Neck Union Free School Dist. v. Areman

• Decision Date: 06 January 1975
• Citation: 80 Misc.2d 659,363 N.Y.S.2d 437
• Parties: , 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2517, 76 Lab.Cas. P 53,614 BOARD OF EDUCATION, GREAT NECK UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. Zita J. AREMAN, President Great Neck Teachers Association, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 437

363 N.Y.S.2d 437

80 Misc.2d 659, 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2517,

76 Lab.Cas. P 53,614

BOARD OF EDUCATION, GREAT NECK UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. Zita J. AREMAN, President Great Neck Teachers Association, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County, Part I.

Jan. 6, 1975.

Neier, Daiker & D'Elia, Port Washington, for petitioner.

Eugene M. Kaufman, New York City, Paul Janis, New York City, of counsel, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM

JAMES F. NIEHOFF, Justice.

This is an application by petitioner for a stay of the arbitration demanded on behalf of the Great Neck Teachers Association (the Association).

Respondent, Areman, the President of the Association, has objected that the instant application was improperly made and that the Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the Association in that the petition and notice thereof were served upon one Howard Edelman, an employee of the New York State United Teachers, and not upon a proper person. However, an inspection of the demand for arbitration reveals that it was subscribed by Mr. Edelman and that he is referred to in the body thereof a '(t)he undersigned, a party to an Arbitration Agreement contained in a written contract dated, July 1, 1973'. Moreover, an examination of the agreement itself reveals the name of the Association as 'Great Neck Teachers Association, New York State United Teachers, NEA/AFT, Local 2686' (emphasis supplied). It is, therefore, understandable that petitioner might have caused the papers to be served upon Mr. Edelman, contending that he was an agent of the Association. Under the circumstances, the Court will consider that jurisdiction has been obtained over the Association, which respondent alleges is a not-for-profit corporation, by service upon a managing agent. Indeed, if the Association disclaims Mr. Edelman's authority with respect to service, it is difficult to understand how it can claim that the demand for arbitration subscribed by him, entitles it to the arbitration sought therein.

The other objection by respondent is to the effect that the Association, as a corporation, should have been named as respondent in her stead. This objection is of a technical nature and, in the absence of a showing of substantial prejudice, has been disregarded. (CPLR § 2001; Covino v. Alside Aluminum Supply, 42 A.D.2d 77, 80, 345 N.Y.S.2d 721, 725).

The collective bargaining agreement, under which the arbitration has been sought, contains provision for the resolution of grievances on the part of members of the Association. The term, 'Grievance', has been defined therein as 'any claimed violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of existing laws, Board policies, rules, procedures, regulations, administrative orders or rules governing conditions of professional service to the extent provided by law; or of the provisions of this agreement.' (Article 18 B.1.)

Briefly stated, it is the contention of the Association that the examination by petitioner's members of teachers' personnel files and the adoption by petitioner of a resolution, authorizing its members to examine 'any and all written, formal evaluations and observation reports of all school personnel' are violative of certain provisions of the aforesaid agreement, specifically, Articles 1, 30.7 and 32. Petitioner having taken a contrary position, it might appear, upon the face of the demand for arbitration, that there is a controversy between the parties which falls within the contemplation of the grievance provision, and is, therefore, arbitrable. But, a more careful analysis of the dispute...