Board of Education v. Yonkers Federation of Teachers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Education v. Yonkers Federation of Teachers

81 A.D.2d 585, 437 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11070

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

DecidedApril 6, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 585 (Board of Education v. Yonkers Federation of 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. Yonkers Federation of Teachers, 81 A.D.2d 585, 437 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the Yonkers Federation of Teachers from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 2, 1980, as granted petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration and failed to find that arbitration of the grievance was not barred by the exclusionary language of the arbitration agreement. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition dismissed, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration. Special Term granted petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration on the basis that the notice of intention to arbitrate failed to amply set forth the matters sought to be arbitrated. The notice set forth those matters as follows: “In September, 1979, a number of elementary teachers were assigned to teach classes of mixed-grade students in violation of 5 different provisions of the contract *** Sections II, B; XV; XX,V;. XX,DD; and XXII.” In the arbitration provisions of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, “grievance” is defined to include “any claimed violation, misinterpretation, or inequitable application of the existing Agreement, laws, rules, procedures, regulations, administrative orders, or work rules of the Board or a department thereof”. Appellant has based its claim for arbitration on specific provisions of the contract. Where, as here, the arbitration provisions broadly embrace all claimed violations of the agreement, any ambiguity is a matter for the arbitrator to resolve (see Board of Educ. v New York State United Teachers, 51 NY2d 994). The notice was sufficient to indicate that arbitration was sought for claimed contractual violations, which were subject to arbitration. Further interpretation should be left to the arbitrator. Mangano, J.P., Rabin, Gulotta and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the Yonkers Federation of Teachers from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 2, 1980, as granted petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration and failed to find that arbitration of the grievance was not barred by the exclusionary language of the arbitration agreement. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, petition dismissed, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration. Special Term granted petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration on the basis that the notice of intention to arbitrate failed to amply set forth the matters sought to be arbitrated. The notice set forth those matters as follows: “In September, 1979, a number of elementary teachers were assigned to teach classes of mixed-grade students in violation of 5 different provisions of the contract *** Sections II, B; XV; XX,V;. XX,DD; and XXII.” In the arbitration provisions of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, “grievance” is defined to include “any claimed violation, misinterpretation, or inequitable application of the existing Agreement, laws, rules, procedures, regulations, administrative orders, or work rules of the Board or a department thereof”. Appellant has based its claim for arbitration on specific provisions of the contract. Where, as here, the arbitration provisions broadly embrace all claimed violations of the agreement, any ambiguity is a matter for the arbitrator to resolve (see Board of Educ. v New York State United Teachers, 51 NY2d 994). The notice was sufficient to indicate that arbitration was sought for claimed contractual violations, which were subject to arbitration. Further interpretation should be left to the arbitrator. Mangano, J.P., Rabin, Gulotta and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 585, 437 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-v-yonkers-federation-of-teachers-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack