Board of Educ. of Enlarged City School Dist. of City of Auburn v. Auburn Teachers Ass'n

• Decision Date: 15 November 1985
• Citation: 115 A.D.2d 296,496 N.Y.S.2d 132
• Parties: , 29 Ed. Law Rep. 321 In the Matter of the Application of BOARD of EDUCATION OF the ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT of the CITY OF AUBURN, New York, Respondent-Appellant. v. AUBURN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 132

496 N.Y.S.2d 132

115 A.D.2d 296, 29 Ed. Law Rep. 321

In the Matter of the Application of BOARD of EDUCATION OF the ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT of the CITY OF AUBURN, New York, Respondent-Appellant. v. AUBURN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Nov. 15, 1985.

Bernard F. Ashe by Gerard DeWolf, Albany, for appellant-respondent.

William Goldman, Auburn, for respondent-appellant.

Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and BOOMER, GREEN, O'DONNELL and SCHNEPP, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Insofar as the order denies the motion to stay arbitration, it should be affirmed. However the court was without authority to limit the power of the arbitrator. Thus that part of the order which states that "to the extent that the arbitrator will consider the issue raised in the grievance proceeding as a separate procedure under the grievance provisions of the labor agreement between the parties, and not as an appeal or review seeking to modify, reverse or annul the determinations made under Education Law Section 3020-a", must be stricken.

The power of the court to interfere with or limit an arbitration proceeding is limited. It may interfere only when the subject matter of the dispute does not fall within the terms of the arbitration clause in the contract or when the arbitration contravenes a strong public policy (Mineola Union Free School Dist. v. Mineola Teachers Assn., 46 N.Y.2d 568, 415 N.Y.S.2d 797, 389 N.E.2d 111). Here, the subject matter of the dispute falls squarely within the terms of the agreement to arbitrate. It is not against public policy to permit an arbitrator to review the act of disciplining a teacher following a 3020-a hearing (Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 3 of the Town of Huntington v. Associated Teachers of Huntington, 30 N.Y.2d 122, 131, 331 N.Y.S.2d 17, 282 N.E.2d 109); nor to engage in the arbitration of a disciplinary dispute simultaneously with the conduct of a 3020-a disciplinary hearing (Board of Educ. of Cattaraugus Cent. School v. Cattaraugus Teachers Assn., 84 A.D.2d 685, 447 N.Y.S.2d 51, affd. for reasons stated at App.Div., 55 N.Y.2d 951, 449 N.Y.S.2d 193, 434 N.E.2d 262), even when the arbitration results in a determination contrary to that reached in the disciplinary hearing and an overruling of that determination (Matter of Susquehanna Valley Teachers Assn. [Board of Educ.], 52 N.Y.2d 1034, 438 N.Y.S.2d 519, 420 N.E.2d 400, affg. 75 A.D.2d 140, 429 N.Y.S.2d 741).

...