Ny City Transit v. Transport Workers' Union
| Citation | 845 N.E.2d 1243,6 N.Y.3d 332 |
| Parties | In the Matter of NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Respondents, v. TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 20 December 2005 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Schwartz, Cure, Lichten & Bright, P.C., New York City (Arthur Z. Schwartz and Daniel R. Bright of counsel), for appellants.
Office of the General Counsel, New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn (Robert K. Drinan and Martin B. Schnabel of counsel), for respondents.
The issue here is whether the arbitrator's award was properly vacated. We conclude that it was not and reverse the order of the Appellate Division.
On September 14, 2001, Franklin Woodruff, who had been employed by the Transit Authority for 22 years, returned to his job as a stock worker after an absence due to an on-the-job injury to his fingers, arm and shoulder. Woodruff was out of work from July 31 to September 13, 2001.
Pursuant to Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Policy/Instruction on Drugs and Controlled Substances ¶ 5.3.1, employees returning to work after 21 or more days off are required to take a drug-screening test by providing a urine specimen. It is undisputed that Woodruff reported to the Transit Authority Medical Assessment Center on September 14, 2001 and that he did not provide a sample. Woodruff states that he was unable to urinate. On October 9, 2001, Woodruff was evaluated by Dr. Avram Nemetz, who found no medical condition or history preventing Woodruff from urinating. On October 23, 2001, he received a disciplinary charge pursuant to CBA Policy/Instruction ¶ 6.2 which states that a refusal to take the required urine test is deemed an admission of improper use of controlled substances with a resultant dismissal. A hearing was held that same day. As mandated by the CBA, the hearing was step I of the grievance proceeding. The charge was sustained at the hearing and the hearing officer recommended dismissal. Pursuant to section 6.1(C)(10) of the CBA, the matter proceeded directly to a step III hearing.
On November 5, 2001, at a step III disciplinary decision, the charge and penalty were sustained. Woodruff requested arbitration. Under the CBA, the arbitrator had the authority to resolve all grievances so long as he did not change the terms of the CBA. After a hearing, the arbitrator noted that Woodruff was over 60 years of age and had been employed by the Authority for over 22 years, always in a non-safety-sensitive position. At the time of the grievance, Woodruff was a stock worker and the arbitrator concluded that the employee had "constructively failed to comply with the legitimate request by the Authority for a urine test" but that "the peculiar facts of this case do not indicate that this becomes the equivalent of a failure of a drug test." The arbitrator then reduced the penalty from termination to suspension and reinstatement to the former position with no back pay.
The Transit Authority filed a CPLR article 75 petition to vacate the arbitrator's award. On June 13, 2003, Supreme Court granted the petition, concluding that the arbitrator's decision was irrational. Supreme Court wrote:
"The court finds, however, that the arbitrator in this case did not limit his determinations to the permissible realm of interpretation and application of the CBA, but rather issued an Award which constituted an impermissible amendment or modification of the CBA in violation of the arbitrator's circumscribed authority to determine grievances."
Supreme Court found further that the arbitrator had created a new category of infraction and impermissibly modified the CBA. Supreme Court wrote:
The Appellate Division affirmed. This Court granted leave to appeal, and we now reverse and reinstate the arbitrator's award.
On this appeal the Transport Workers' Union (TWU) argues that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schiferle v. Capital Fence Co.
...the arbitrator misapplied the substantive law" ( Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, AFL–CIO, 6 N.Y.3d 332, 336, 812 N.Y.S.2d 413, 845 N.E.2d 1243 ). An arbitration award is not immune from judicial scrutiny, however, and it will be vacated if, i......
-
Stone v. Theatrical Inv. Corp.
...Utils., Inc., 126 A.D.2d 547, 510 N.Y.S.2d 671, 673 (1987) ); see also N.Y. City Transit Auth. v. Transp. Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, AFL–CIO, 6 N.Y.3d 332, 336, 812 N.Y.S.2d 413, 845 N.E.2d 1243 (2005) (“Such an excess of power occurs only where the arbitrator's award violates a stro......
-
Gansburg v. Blachman
...enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power” (Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers' Union of Am. Local 100, AFL–CIO, 6 N.Y.3d 332 [2005] ).(See Reddy v. Schaffer, 123 AD3d 925 [2d Dept 2014]; Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of New York, LLC, 123 AD3d 721 [2d Dept ......
-
Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp.
...917 N.Y.S.2d 82, 942 N.E.2d 291 [2010], quoting Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, AFL–CIO , 6 N.Y.3d 332, 336, 812 N.Y.S.2d 413, 845 N.E.2d 1243 [2005] ; see 35 N.Y.3d 71 Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.] , 15 N.Y.3d 530, 53......