Inc. Vill. of Floral Park v. Floral Park Police Benevolent Ass'n

• Decision Date: 30 September 2015
• Docket Number: 2014-00187, Index No. 1938/13.
• Citation: 131 A.D.3d 1240,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07026,17 N.Y.S.3d 463
• Parties: In the Matter of INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FLORAL PARK, respondent, v. FLORAL PARK POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

131 A.D.3d 1240

17 N.Y.S.3d 463

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07026

In the Matter of INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FLORAL PARK, respondent

v.FLORAL PARK POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, appellant.

2014-00187, Index No. 1938/13.

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

Sept. 30, 2015.

Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Paul S. Linzer, Jennifer A. Bentley, and Stephen McQuade of counsel), for appellant.

Ryan, Brennan & Donnelly, LLP, Floral Park, N.Y. (John M. Donnelly of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, the Floral Park Police Benevolent Association appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), dated September 30, 2013, which granted the petition to permanently stay arbitration and denied the cross petition to compel arbitration.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition to permanently stay arbitration is denied, the cross petition to compel arbitration is granted, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration.

The Floral Park Police Benevolent Association (hereinafter the PBA) filed a grievance alleging that its members, who worked during and in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, from October 29, 2012, through November 5, 2012, were entitled to additional compensation from the Incorporated Village of Floral Park pursuant to their Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter the CBA). After the grievance was denied in the first three steps of the grievance procedure, the PBA demanded arbitration. The Village thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay the arbitration, and the PBA cross-petitioned to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court granted the Village's petition and denied the PBA's cross petition. We reverse.

Public policy in New York favors arbitral resolution of public sector labor disputes (see Matter of City of Long Beach v. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc.-Long Beach Unit, 8 N.Y.3d 465, 470, 835 N.Y.S.2d 538, 867 N.E.2d 389 ; Matter of Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. [Buffalo Bd. of Educ.], 90 N.Y.2d 364, 372, 660 N.Y.S.2d 827, 683 N.E.2d 733 ). However, a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is only arbitrable if it satisfies a two-prong test (see Matter of County of Rockland v. Correction Officers Benevolent Assn. of Rockland County, Inc., 126 A.D.3d 694, 5 N.Y.S.3d 197 ; Matter of Board of Educ. of Deer Park Union Free School Dist. v. Deer Park Teachers' Assn., 77 A.D.3d 747, 747–748, 909 N.Y.S.2d 738 ). “Initially, the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance” (Matter of Board of Educ. of Deer Park Union Free School Dist. v. Deer Park Teachers' Assn., 77 A.D.3d at 748, 909 N.Y.S.2d 738 ; see Matter of County of Rockland v. Civil Serv. Empl. Assn., Inc., 93 A.D.3d 721, 721–722, 940 N.Y.S.2d 285 ). If there is no prohibition against the arbitration, the court must determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement (see Matter of County of Rockland v. Civil Serv. Empl. Assn., Inc., 93 A.D.3d at 722, 940 N.Y.S.2d 285 ; Matter of Board of Educ. of Deer Park Union Free School Dist. v. Deer Park Teachers' Assn., 77 A.D.3d at 748, 909 N.Y.S.2d 738 ).

Here, the Village does not assert on appeal that arbitration of this grievance was prohibited by statute or public policy, and we find no such prohibition. “In analyzing whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute, a court ‘is merely to determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA’ ” (Matter of Board of Educ. of Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Yorktown Congress of Teachers,

98 A.D.3d 665, 667, 949 N.Y.S.2d 777, quoting Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 N.Y.2d 273, 279, 755 N.Y.S.2d 49, 784 N.E.2d 1158 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 N.Y.2d 132, 143, 688 N.Y.S.2d 463, 710 N.E.2d 1064 ). Here, the relevant arbitration provisions of the CBA are broad, as they provide for arbitration of any grievance, defined as “any claimed violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of this Agreement,” which remains unresolved following completion of step three of the grievance procedure. Moreover, there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute, which involves compensation over a specific time period, and the general subject matter of the CBA (see Matter of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 N.Y.2d at 279–280, 755 N.Y.S.2d 49, 784 N.E.2d 1158 ; Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 N.Y.2d at 143, 688 N.Y.S.2d 463, 710 N.E.2d 1064 ; Matter of Board of Educ. of Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Yorktown Congress of Teachers, 98 A.D.3d at 667, 949 N.Y.S.2d 777 ). Contrary to the Village's contention, whether the evidence supports the grievance is a question for the arbitrator, and not the courts, to decide (see Matter of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 N.Y.2d at 279, 755 N.Y.S.2d 49, 784 N.E.2d 1158 ; Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], ...