Franklin Central School v. Franklin Teachers Ass'n

• Citation: 51 N.Y.2d 348,434 N.Y.S.2d 185,414 N.E.2d 685
• Parties: , 414 N.E.2d 685 In the Matter of the Arbitration between FRANKLIN CENTRAL SCHOOL, Appellant, and FRANKLIN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents. In the Matter of the Arbitration between FRANKLIN CENTRAL SCHOOL, Respondent, and FRANKLIN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 25 November 1980
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 185

434 N.Y.S.2d 185

51 N.Y.2d 348, 414 N.E.2d 685

In the Matter of the Arbitration between FRANKLIN CENTRAL

SCHOOL, Appellant,

and

FRANKLIN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents.

In the Matter of the Arbitration between FRANKLIN CENTRAL

SCHOOL, Respondent,

and

FRANKLIN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 25, 1980.

Edward J. Sarzynski, Binghamton, for appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding

Janet Axelrod and Paul E. Klein, Albany, for respondents in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Janet Axelrod and Paul E. Klein, Albany, for appellant in the second above-entitled proceeding.

Edward J. Sarzynski, Binghamton, for respondents in the second above-entitled proceeding.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JASEN, Judge.

In each of the cases before us, the Franklin Teachers Association demanded arbitration of a grievance filed by one of its members, Ruth Laing. Petitioner Franklin Central School seeks, in two separate proceedings, to stay both arbitrations. The issues presented on these appeals are whether a nonteaching civil service school employee who has become, by agreement, part of the collective bargaining unit comprised of noncivil service teaching employees should be afforded the benefit of a broad arbitration clause contained within the teachers' collective bargaining agreement and whether arbitration is the proper forum in which to test such nonteaching employee's potential entitlement to other substantive terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

Ruth Laing was employed by petitioner Franklin Central School (hereinafter "the school district") as a "school nurse-teacher". During her employment in this noncivil service teaching position, Laing became a member of respondent Franklin Teachers Association (hereinafter "the teachers association"). On May 18, 1977, the board of education abolished the position of school nurse-teacher, effective June 30, 1977, and created in its stead a new nonteaching civil service "school nurse" position. Upon learning of the abolition of this teaching position, the teachers association filed an "improper practice" charge with the Public Employment Relations Board alleging that the school district's "unilateral elimination" of the school nurse-teacher position was improper. At a prehearing conference between the school district and the teachers association, the improper practice charge was settled. Among the conditions of that settlement were that the newly created civil service position of school nurse would be offered to Ms. Laing on a probationary basis and that the new position would be "a part of the teaching unit for the purpose of negotiations under the provisions of the Civil Service Law." Shortly after this settlement was achieved, the new school year began and Ms. Laing started her new position as school nurse at a salary substantially less than she had received as a school nurse-teacher.

In October, 1977, the teachers association filed a grievance against the school district alleging that Ms. Laing was "a member of the (collective) bargaining unit and (was) being paid improperly." At root of this grievance is the notion that Laing, as a member of the collective bargaining unit, is entitled to the benefits of the previously negotiated collective bargaining agreement. After completion of the preliminary grievance procedures in the agreement, the teachers association demanded arbitration on February 24, 1978. The school district responded by instituting a judicial proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 seeking a stay of the proposed arbitration upon the ground that the collective bargaining agreement was applicable only to teachers and not to a civil service school nurse.

Before any resolution could be reached on the merits of the above salary grievance and, indeed, before the proceeding to stay was commenced, a second dispute between the parties arose. On March 6, 1978, shortly after the teachers association had demanded arbitration of the "salary grievance", the school district terminated Ms. Laing's employment as school nurse on the basis of alleged "unsatisfactory service". The teachers association filed a grievance upon this issue as well, contending that under the terms of the teachers' collective bargaining agreement Ms. Laing could not be terminated without "just cause" and again demanded arbitration. The school district in a separate proceeding sought a stay of arbitration, this time upon the ground that the "just cause" provision in the agreement applied only to tenured teachers and not to a civil service school nurse.

Supreme Court, Delaware County, denied the school district's motion for a stay of arbitration of the "salary grievance", holding that the school district's agreement to expand the bargaining unit to include the school nurse gave Ms. Laing the right, as a member of such unit, to seek arbitration of any grievance arising under the collective bargaining agreement. The court, however, granted the stay of arbitration of the so-called "just cause grievance" upon the ground that the "just cause" provision of the collective bargaining agreement "obviously" applies only to tenured teachers. Thus, since Ms. Laing was not a "tenured teacher", the court concluded that she "clearly is not entitled to the benefits of (the 'just cause' provision)."

The Appellate Division affirmed both orders of Supreme Court. The court agreed with Special Term that although Ms. Laing was a member of the collective bargaining unit and was, therefore, able to arbitrate her salary dispute, she could not arbitrate her "just cause grievance" because that provision of the contract applied only to tenured employees. We cannot agree. In our view, both of the disputes in issue should be submitted to the arbitrator. We therefore affirm the order of the Appellate Division allowing arbitration of the salary dispute, 73 A.D.2d 775, 424 N.Y.S.2d 739 and reverse the order precluding arbitration of the "just cause" dispute 73 A.D.2d 781, 424...