37 N.Y.2d 614 (1975)
A school board is free to voluntarily bargain and agree to submit disputes about staff size to arbitration, even if staff size is not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.
Summary
This case concerns whether a school district can be compelled to arbitrate a dispute over staff reductions, which the teachers’ association claimed violated their collective bargaining agreement. The Court of Appeals held that the school district was required to arbitrate. While matters of public policy can restrict the scope of arbitrability, there was no such restriction apparent in this case regarding staff size. The Court distinguished between mandatory collective bargaining (where certain subjects might be excluded) and voluntary agreements to arbitrate, emphasizing that the school board was free to agree to arbitrate disputes about staff size.
Facts
The Susquehanna Valley Central School District and the Susquehanna Valley Teachers’ Association had a collective bargaining agreement. The agreement addressed average class sizes and staff size, and provided for the hiring of two additional teachers for the upcoming academic year. The school district’s budget for the 1973-1974 school year included a staff reduction. The Teachers’ Association contended that the staff reduction violated the collective bargaining agreement and demanded arbitration, seeking reinstatement of the abolished positions.
Procedural History
The School District petitioned for a permanent stay of arbitration. The lower court directed the school district to proceed to arbitration. The Appellate Division affirmed that order. The School District appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a school district is required to arbitrate a dispute over staff size when the collective bargaining agreement contains provisions related to staffing levels.
Holding
Yes, because the school board voluntarily agreed to submit disputes about staff size to arbitration, and there is no public policy restricting the freedom to contract concerning staff size.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished between the duty to engage in collective bargaining and the freedom to agree to submit controversies to arbitration. While the Public Employment Relations Board could determine that class size was not a term or condition of employment subject to mandatory collective bargaining, the school board was still free to voluntarily bargain about staff size and agree to submit disputes about it to arbitration.
The Court emphasized that the freedom to contract in private matters does not automatically extend to public school matters because of governmental interests and public concerns. However, in this case, no restrictive policy limited the freedom to contract concerning staff size. The Court stated, “Thus, the board of education was always free to bargain voluntarily about staff size and was also, therefore, free to agree to submit to arbitration disputes about staff size.”
Judge Fuchsberg, in concurrence, cautioned against courts freely assuming the role of arbiters of public policy, especially when a statutory scheme already addresses policy considerations. He argued that the majority’s pronouncements could encourage litigation rather than resolving disputes in public employment.