48 N.Y.2d 669 (1979)
r
r
Public policy does not automatically bar arbitration in every instance where a collective bargaining agreement might affect a school board’s management prerogatives; if the arbitration clause is broad enough to cover the dispute, and the grievance is based on a specific contract provision, arbitration should proceed.
r
r
Summary
r
The Wyandanch Teachers Association sought arbitration on two grievances related to the school board’s actions. The first concerned the board’s failure to submit a change in educational policy to an advisory council. The second related to the assignment of duties to teachers that the Association claimed violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Court of Appeals held that both grievances were subject to arbitration, emphasizing the broad scope of the arbitration clause and the fact that the grievances were based on specific provisions within the agreement. The Court reiterated that ambiguities in the substantive contract provisions are for the arbitrator to resolve, not the courts.
r
r
Facts
r
The Wyandanch Teachers Association (the Association) and the Wyandanch Union Free School District (the Board) were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. The Association filed two demands for arbitration, alleging two grievances: 1) The Board failed to submit a change in educational policy to an advisory professional council for recommendations. 2) Certain duties were imposed on teachers in violation of a specific article within the collective bargaining agreement.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The School District sought to stay arbitration of both grievances. The Appellate Division refused to stay arbitration of the first grievance but granted a stay regarding the second. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, denying a stay of arbitration for both grievances.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether public policy bars arbitration of a grievance concerning a school board’s failure to submit a change in educational policy to an advisory council when a collective bargaining agreement is in place?
r
2. Whether a dispute over the assignment of duties to teachers, allegedly in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, falls within the scope of a broad arbitration clause, even if the substantive provisions of the contract are ambiguous?
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because public policy does not automatically preclude arbitration when a collective bargaining agreement addresses matters that might affect a school board’s management prerogatives.
r
2. Yes, because if the arbitration clause is unambiguous and extends to all controversies affecting the meaning, interpretation, or application of the agreement, and the grievance is based on a specific provision of the contract, the parties agreed to submit such disputes to arbitration.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals emphasized that public policy does not create an automatic bar to arbitration whenever a collective bargaining agreement touches upon school board management prerogatives, citing Mineola Union Free School Dist. v Mineola Teachers Assn., 46 NY2d 568, 571. Regarding the first grievance, the court found that the Appellate Division correctly refused to stay arbitration, as the matter pertained to the board’s alleged failure to follow procedures outlined in the agreement.
r
Concerning the second grievance, the Court determined that the Appellate Division erred in staying arbitration. The Court highlighted the broad language of the arbitration clause, which extended to all controversies