In re the Arbitration between Town of Orangetown & Town of Orangetown Unit Rockland County Local 844 of Civil Service Employees Ass'n

96 A.D.2d 906, 466 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19517
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 22, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 906 (In re the Arbitration between Town of Orangetown & Town of Orangetown Unit Rockland County Local 844 of Civil Service Employees Ass'n) 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
In re the Arbitration between Town of Orangetown & Town of Orangetown Unit Rockland County Local 844 of Civil Service Employees Ass'n, 96 A.D.2d 906, 466 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate an arbitration award, in which the respondent cross-moved to confirm the award, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Ruskin, J.), dated October 22, 1982, which denied the application and granted the cross motion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties provided that in filling vacant or new positions, a preference be given to an employee with the most seniority so long as he or she met the basic qualifications for the position. The arbitrator determined that petitioner violated that agreement because the grievant, the most senior employee who applied for the position of sewer system mechanic, and who met the three-year experience requirement established by the Rockland County personnel officer pursuant to statute and regulation, was not accorded a preference and that the appropriate remedy was to place the grievant in the position with retroactive pay. That determination cannot be classified as irrational or in excess of the arbitrator’s powers (see Matter of Local Div. 1179, Amalgamated Tr. Union [Green Bus Lines], 50 NY2d 1007; Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 NY2d 578). Nor does the award violate public policy (see City of New York v Uniformed Firefighters Assn., 58 NY2d 957). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Board of Education v. Port Jefferson Station Teachers' Ass'n
227 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 A.D.2d 906, 466 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-town-of-orangetown-town-of-orangetown-unit-nyappdiv-1983.