Board of Education v. New York State United Teachers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Education v. New York State United Teachers

71 A.D.2d 846, 419 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13104

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 6, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 A.D.2d 846 (Board of Education v. New York State United Teachers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Education v. New York State United Teachers, 71 A.D.2d 846, 419 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to stay arbitration, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 2, 1979, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application granted, without prejudice to the respondents’ filing of a proper demand for arbitration. Grievant Mary Jane Hayes was hired by the petitioner, Board of Education, Mt. Sinai Union Free School District (Board), as a part-time probationary art teacher. She was notified by the district principal that he would recommend to the Board at its regularly scheduled January meeting that her probationary appointment be terminated. On January 24, 1978, it was determined that her employment was to be terminated. On January 25, 1978, respondent teachers association filed a grievance on behalf of Ms. Hayes. On February 1, 1978, the association proceeded to step 2 of the grievance procedure, submitting a "Statement of Grievance” alleging that sections 1, 2 and 3 of article 11 and sections 4 and 5 of article 12 of the contract had been violated. The nature of the grievance was in pertinent part set forth as follows: "The Association asserts that the administration has failed to uphold several provisions of the contract as listed above. The dismissal of Mary Jane Hayes has been executed without just cause in violation of above stated Article XII Section 5. The Association further asserts that several other articles, as listed above, were also violated in this case.” The grievance not having been resolved, respondents filed a demand for arbitration, which added nothing to the statement of grievance, but merely incorporated that statement by reference. In our opinion, the demand for arbitration is insufficient. The mere listing of article and section number of a collective bargaining agreement, accompanied only by vague assertions of violations thereof, does not suffice to indicate how or in what manner these provisions are alleged to have been violated. Without such indication an intelligent disposition of the application to stay arbitration is not possible (see Board of Educ. v Miller Place Teachers’ Assn., 70 AD2d 944). Titone, J. P., Margett, Martuscello and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a proceeding to stay arbitration, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 2, 1979, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application granted, without prejudice to the respondents’ filing of a proper demand for arbitration. Grievant Mary Jane Hayes was hired by the petitioner, Board of Education, Mt. Sinai Union Free School District (Board), as a part-time probationary art teacher. She was notified by the district principal that he would recommend to the Board at its regularly scheduled January meeting that her probationary appointment be terminated. On January 24, 1978, it was determined that her employment was to be terminated. On January 25, 1978, respondent teachers association filed a grievance on behalf of Ms. Hayes. On February 1, 1978, the association proceeded to step 2 of the grievance procedure, submitting a "Statement of Grievance” alleging that sections 1, 2 and 3 of article 11 and sections 4 and 5 of article 12 of the contract had been violated. The nature of the grievance was in pertinent part set forth as follows: "The Association asserts that the administration has failed to uphold several provisions of the contract as listed above. The dismissal of Mary Jane Hayes has been executed without just cause in violation of above stated Article XII Section 5. The Association further asserts that several other articles, as listed above, were also violated in this case.” The grievance not having been resolved, respondents filed a demand for arbitration, which added nothing to the statement of grievance, but merely incorporated that statement by reference. In our opinion, the demand for arbitration is insufficient. The mere listing of article and section number of a collective bargaining agreement, accompanied only by vague assertions of violations thereof, does not suffice to indicate how or in what manner these provisions are alleged to have been violated. Without such indication an intelligent disposition of the application to stay arbitration is not possible (see Board of Educ. v Miller Place Teachers’ Assn., 70 AD2d 944). Titone, J. P., Margett, Martuscello and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 846, 419 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-v-new-york-state-united-teachers-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack