CORRECTIONAL ASS'N. v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1999 |
| Citation | 94 N.Y.2d 321,704 N.Y.S.2d 910,726 N.E.2d 462 |
| Parties | In the Matter of NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Respondents, v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Denise A. Hartman, Preeta D. Bansal, Peter H. Schiff and Nancy A. Spiegel of counsel), for appellants.
Hinman, Straub, Pigors & Manning, P. C., Albany (Richard E. Casagrande of counsel), for respondents.
The issue on this appeal by the State is whether an arbitral award reinstating a correctional officer should be vacated because it violates a well-defined and explicit public policy of this State. The parties concede that the grievance procedure here was the proper subject of arbitration, and do not question the power of the arbitrator to decide this proceeding and reinstate the employee. Furthermore, there is no explicit public policy of this State which proscribes the reinstatement of an employee following a not guilty determination of the charges lodged against him. Therefore we conclude that the award should not be vacated and affirm the Appellate Division order so holding.
Petitioner Edward Kuhnel is a correctional officer employed by the Department of Correctional Services. He was suspended from duty because on December 10, 1996—the 55th anniversary of Hitler's declaration of war on the United States—he flew a Nazi flag from the front porch of his home. Kuhnel's display of the flag was reported by several newspapers throughout the State.
The notice of discipline charged Kuhnel with violating sections 2.1 and 2.7 of the employee manual, which relate to the conduct and activities of Department employees. Section 2.1 ("Personal Conduct") states:
"No employee, whether on or off duty, shall so comport himself as to reflect discredit upon the Department or its personnel."
Section 2.7 ("Affiliations") states:
"An employee shall not join or otherwise affiliate himself with any organization, body, or group of persons when such association or affiliation will place his personal interest or interest as a member of such group in conflict with or otherwise interfere with the impartial and effective performance of his duties as an employee."
The notice also indicated that Kuhnel's actions "have endangered the safety and security of all facilities in the New York State Department of Correctional Services."
Pursuant to the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement between the correctional officers' union and the State, Kuhnel's suspension was submitted to arbitration. Both parties agreed that the arbitration procedure would be final and binding. The arbitrator concluded that the Department had not sustained its burden of proof, determined that Kuhnel was not guilty of violating the charges contained in the notice of discipline, and reinstated Kuhnel with full back pay and benefits.
With regard to the charge that Kuhnel violated section 2.1, the arbitrator engaged in a three-part balancing test, weighing the Department's business interest in security and management of an inmate population against Kuhnel's off-duty misconduct. The arbitrator concluded that there was no nexus between the off-duty misconduct and Kuhnel's employment absent evidence that his conduct harmed the Department's business, adversely affected Kuhnel's ability to perform his job, or caused co-workers not to work with him. The arbitrator noted that in every year but one during Kuhnel's 15 years with the Department, his evaluations were either "excellent" or "outstanding." Thus, according to the arbitrator, the projection of possible harm, as opposed to evidence of actual harm, was not enough to permit restriction of the employee's symbolic free speech or regulation of his off duty conduct. Regarding the second charge, the arbitrator determined that other than flying the flag, the State provided no evidence of Kuhnel's affiliation with the Neo-Nazi party's objectives or activities. He was not shown to have financially contributed to this party, attended meetings, distributed literature or espoused its philosophy.
Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 75 proceeding to confirm the arbitration award; respondents cross-petitioned to vacate the award on the grounds that it was irrational and violated public policy. Supreme Court granted the petition to confirm the award and denied the cross petition.
The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed. The majority held that the award was rational and did not violate a strong public policy of this State. In analyzing the public policy challenge, the majority determined that it could not invade the province of the arbitrator and thus could examine only the arbitration agreement or award, without engaging in fact finding. It then reviewed the collective bargaining agreement and concluded that Kuhnel's reinstatement "is expressly authorized under the parties' agreement" (255 AD2d 54, 57). Turning to the award, the majority concluded that there is no public policy of the State which prohibits, in an absolute sense, the presence within our prison system of those who "embrace bigoted views as evidenced by their public speech" (id., at 57). The majority noted that it was constrained by law from invoking "public policy considerations as a basis for usurping the role of the arbitrator and resolving the underlying dispute on the merits" (id., at 58). The dissent balanced Kuhnel's rights to freedom of speech against the State's legitimate concern for security within its prisons, and concluded that the arbitration award violates a strong public policy of the State against employees within the prison system "who affiliate with racist groups" (id., at 60).
Because our jurisprudence has carefully limited the invocation of public policy concerns as a basis for usurping the role of an arbitrator and determining a dispute on the merits, we affirm.
Collective bargaining agreements commonly provide for binding arbitration to settle contractual disputes between employees and management. In circumstances when the parties agree to submit their dispute to an arbitrator, courts generally play a limited role. Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract and judgment concerning remedies. A court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one. Indeed, even in circumstances where an arbitrator makes errors of law or fact, courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the award to their sense of justice (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629-631; see also, United Paperworkers Intl. Union v Misco, Inc., 484 US 29, 38
; International Bhd. of Elec. Workers v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 143 F3d 704, 714).
Despite this deference, courts may vacate arbitral awards in some limited circumstances. A court may vacate an award when it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator's power under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (Matter of Board of Educ. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37
).
In this case, the State argues only the public policy exception as the basis for vacating the award. In this regard, a court may vacate an arbitral award where strong and well-defined policy considerations embodied in constitutional, statutory or common law prohibit a particular matter from being decided or certain relief from being granted by an arbitrator (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], supra, at 631; see also, Grace & Co. v Local Union 759, 461 US 757, 766
; United Paperworkers Intl. Union v Misco, Inc., supra, at 43). The focus of inquiry is on the result, the award itself (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schoonmaker v. Cummings & Lockwood of Connecticut, PC
...Bennett & Morrissey, 143 N.J. 420, 428-30, 672 A.2d 1132 (1996); New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. New York, 94 N.Y.2d 321, 326-27, 726 N.E.2d 462, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910 (1999); Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers Assn., 698 A.2d 688, 68......
-
State v. Henderson
...Supreme Court prohibited. The arbitrator's findings in this case are similar to those considered by a New York appellate court in State Corr. Officers & Pol. Benev. v. State.13 There, a correctional officer was suspended from duty for flying a Nazi flag from the front porch his home on the ......
-
C.R. Klewin Northeast v. City of Bridgeport
...the [c]ourt to find its own facts"), aff'd, 74 F.3d 346 (1st Cir.1996); New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v. State, 94 N.Y.2d 321, 327, 726 N.E.2d 462, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910 (1999) (in making public policy determination, "the issue before this [c]ourt is not whether ......
-
Groton v. United Steelworkers of America
...v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36-38, 108 S. Ct. 364, 98 L. Ed.2d 286 (1987); New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. New York, 94 N.Y.2d 321, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910, 726 N.E.2d 462 (1999). Notably, the arbitrator made a factual finding that Warren, the employee in t......
-
Public law at the New York Court of Appeals: an update on developments, 2000.
...noting that "speech used to further the sexual exploitation of children does not enjoy constitutional protection"). (82) Id. at 131. (83) 726 N.E.2d 462 (N.Y. (84) Id. at 464. (85) Id. (86) See id. at 465 (reiterating the arbitrator's decision that "the projection of possible harm ... was n......
-
The calculus of dissent: a study of appellate division.
...(App. Div. 1999) (Peters, J., dissenting), aff. sub. nom. New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. State, 726 N.E.2d 462 (N.Y. 1999); People v. Mike, 667 N.Y.S.2d 467, 469 (App. Div. 1998) (Peters, J., dissenting), rev'd, 706 N.E.2d 1189 (N.Y. 1998); People v. J......
-
The collision of church and state: a primer to beth din arbitration and the New York secular courts.
...Arbitration: Is It Time To Offer An Appeal Option?, 11 AM. REV. INT'L ARB. 531 (2000). (104.) In re State Corr. Officers v. New York, 726 N.E.2d 462, 465 (N.Y. (105.) E.g., Sultan Mohiuddin v. Khan, 602 N.Y.S.2d 664, 665 (App. Div. 1993) (quoting Syracuse Cent. Sch. Dist. v N. Syracuse Educ......