Depew Union Free School District v. Depew Teachers Organization, Inc.

77 A.D.2d 798, 430 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 10, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 A.D.2d 798 (Depew Union Free School District v. Depew Teachers Organization, Inc.) 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
Depew Union Free School District v. Depew Teachers Organization, Inc., 77 A.D.2d 798, 430 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, motion denied and arbitrator’s award reinstated. Memorandum:- Respondents Ritter and Okal are teachers in the Depew Middle School who received a- directive from the vice-principal limiting the time that their students spend in "independent study” (student doing research work, etc., on his own). Respondents then commenced arbitration, and the arbitrator directed the petitioner district to rescind the directive. Special Term granted petitioner’s application to vacate the award. The collective bargaining agreement provides for the arbitration of grievances. Article 34 (§ 2, subd 2.1) defines a grievance as follows: "a grievance is an alleged violation, misinterpretation, misapplication, or inequitable applications of law, this agreement, or rules and regulations governing the terms of employment of teachers.” Section 1 of article 3 of the agreement provides: "Any change in policy which pertains to any terms and conditions of employment for teachers whether or not contained in this agreement will be discussed and negotiated with the DTO.” The arbitrator, finding that there had been no discussion between the school, district and the teachers organization, and that the directive pertained to terms and conditions of employment, ruled that section 1 of article 3 had been violated. It was the function of the arbitrator to determine the meaning of section 1 of article 3 (Matter of Wyandanch Union Free School Dist. v Wyandanch Teachers Assn., 48 NY2d 669), and because of the broad definition of grievance, the matter was arbitrable (Board of Educ. v Barni, 49 NY2d 311). Since the remedy fashioned by the arbitrator does no more than require that the parties to the agreement "discuss and negotiate” before implementing any change, the remedy, was not in excess of the arbitrator’s power (Matter of Wyandanch Union Free School Dist. v Wyandanch Teachers Assn., supra; Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d 411). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court— arbitration.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ. [98 Misc 2d 85.]

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

Related

Wappingers Central School District v. Wappingers Congress of Teachers
84 A.D.2d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Board of Education v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n
78 A.D.2d 999 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 A.D.2d 798, 430 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/depew-union-free-school-district-v-depew-teachers-organization-inc-nyappdiv-1980.