To return to the publication, use the « back button on your browser
Fourth Department
Matter of the Arbitration Between
Monroe County Deputy Sheriff's
Association,
Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant,
and
Monroe County/ Monroe County
Sheriff,
Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent.
Ca 02-00998
752 N.Y.S.2d 457
2002 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 12887
December 30, 2002, Entered
Green,
J.P., Hayes, Scudder, Gorski, and Lawton, Judges
Memorandum and Order
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court,
Monroe County (Fisher, J.), entered January 29, 2002, which denied the petition
to confirm an arbitration award and granted the cross petition to vacate the
award.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so
appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without
costs, the petition is granted, the arbitration award is confirmed and the
cross petition is denied.
Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying its
petition to confirm an arbitration award directing respondent Monroe County to
provide its deputies in the Civil Bureau of respondent Monroe County Sheriff
(Sheriff) with firearms and by providing that no deputy will be authorized to
carry a firearm unless properly trained and granting the Sheriff's cross
petition to vacate the award. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying
the petition and in granting the cross petition.
The parties are governed by a collective
bargaining agreement requiring the arbitration of grievances relating to the
health and safety of the deputies. Petitioner brought a grievance alleging that
the "health and safety of [its] deputies assigned to the Civil Bureau is
jeopardized by the Sheriff not providing proper training and tools to carry out
their duties *** including but not limited to firearms."
The arbitrator determined that
the Sheriff "created an unusual and unsafe work condition by failing to
provide firearms and proper training in connection with firearms for the Civil
Bureau." The arbitrator noted that the typical duties of a civil deputy are,
inter alia, to "enforce court orders of seizures, arrest and evictions,
executions and attachments; when necessary, pursue offenders on foot, stop
offenders and suspects using necessary force; *** restrain combative, suicidal,
argumentative or mentally disturbed people *** search suspects, places and
things; *** seize and impound property and evidence and transport arrested
persons and property."
The arbitrator further noted
that the equipment issued to civil deputies, i.e., bullet proof vests and handcuffs,
"are not issued to people whose jobs put them at no risk or even slight
risk." The arbitrator thus determined that it "would be irresponsible
to deny [the] civil deputies the equipment they need to meet the greatest
threats to their safety."
"An agreement to submit to arbitration disputes arising out
of a contract, once condemned by the judiciary of this State as tending to oust
the courts of their jurisdiction ***, is now favorably recognized as an
efficacious procedure whereby parties can select their own nonjudicial forum
for the 'private and practical' resolution of their disputes 'with maximum
dispatch and at minimum expense'" (Matter of Sprinzen Nomberg, 46 N.Y.2d
623, 629, 389 N.E.2d 456, 415 N.Y.S.2d 974). "Judicial intervention on public
policy grounds constitutes a narrow exception to the otherwise broad power of
parties to agree to arbitrate all of the disputes arising out of their
juridical relationships, and the correlative, expansive power of arbitrators to
fashion fair determinations of the parties' rights and remedies" (Matter
of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., ___ N.Y.2d ___,
___, 2002 N.Y. Lexis 2840 [Oct. 10, 2002]).
The
narrow public policy exception applies only in "'cases in which public
policy considerations, embodied in statute or decisional law, prohibit, in an
absolute sense, particular matters being decided or certain relief being
granted by an arbitrator'" (id. at ___, quoting Sprinzen, 46 N.Y.2d at
631).
We
further note that, in labor disputes such as this, an arbitrator is selected by
both labor and management because of his or her expertise in the area of labor
disputes, and both labor and management "trust in [the arbitrator's]
personal judgment to bring to bear considerations which are not expressed in
the contract ***. The ablest judge cannot be expected to bring the same
experience and competence to bear upon the determination of a grievance [in a
labor dispute], because [the judge] cannot be similarly informed" (United
Steel Workers v Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 4 L. Ed. 2d
1409, 80 S. Ct. 1347; see New York City Tr. Auth., ___ N.Y.2d at ___).
In denying the petition and granting the cross petition, the court
determined that the arbitration award contravenes public policy because it
invades the nondelegable, discretionary authority conferred on the Sheriff by
the collective bargaining agreement and Judiciary Law § 400 to determine
whether work will be accomplished with the aid of firearms. We conclude that
the public policy consideration cited by the court does not meet the strict
standards developed through case law for overturning such an award on public
policy grounds (see New York City Tr. Auth., ___ N.Y.2d at ___).
The reliance of respondent on Judiciary Law § 400 as the statutory authority for its contention that the arbitration award is violative of public policy is misplaced. Judiciary Law § 400 provides that, "if a sheriff, to whom a mandate is directed and delivered, finds, or has reason to apprehend, that resistance will be made to the execution thereof, he may command all persons in his county, or as many as he thinks proper, and with such arms as he directs, to assist him in overcoming the resistance [emphasis added]." Contrary to respondent's contention, Judiciary Law § 400 does not prohibit the subject arbitration "in an absolute sense" (New York City Tr. Auth., ___ N.Y.2d at ___). Indeed, the subject arbitration involves matters relating to the general health and safety of the civil deputies, an arbitrable dispute pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, Judiciary Law § 400 does not reserve to the Sheriff the nondelegable authority to decide the manner in which the health and safety of the civil deputies would be best protected. By their collective bargaining agreement, the parties agreed to submit to arbitration issues involving the health and safety of the civil deputies, and "we must honor the choice of the parties to have their controversy decided in that forum" (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 N.Y.2d 321, 329, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910, 726 N.E.2d 462).
To return to the publication, use the « back button on your
browser