Matter of Board of Educ. v. Watertown Educ. Ass’n, 74 N.Y.2d 906 (1989)
A court should not stay arbitration unless public policy considerations absolutely prohibit the arbitrator from deciding particular matters or granting specific relief; questions of procedural compliance with a grievance process are for the arbitrator to decide.
Summary
The Watertown City School District sought to stay arbitration demanded by the Watertown Education Association concerning the appointment of a non-bargaining unit member to a coaching position. The Association argued this violated their collective bargaining agreement. The School District claimed the issue was not arbitrable due to public policy and the Association’s failure to follow pre-arbitration grievance procedures. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision to stay arbitration, holding that it was premature to intervene, as the arbitrator could potentially fashion a remedy that did not violate public policy. The court also determined that procedural compliance with the grievance process was an issue for the arbitrator.
Facts
The Watertown City School District (School District) and the Watertown Education Association (Association) had a collective bargaining agreement stating that instructional position vacancies would be filled from within the bargaining unit.
When a part-time head varsity basketball coach position opened, the School District appointed someone outside the bargaining unit.
Two Association members, both former head basketball coaches, applied for the position but were rejected. The School District claimed they were unqualified, which the Association disputed.
Following the appointment, the Association filed a grievance, which was denied, and then demanded arbitration, claiming the appointment violated the collective bargaining agreement. They sought the immediate appointment of a member applicant and back pay.
Procedural History
The School District initiated a CPLR article 75 proceeding seeking to stay arbitration on public policy grounds.
Special Term denied the stay and ordered arbitration.
The Appellate Division reversed and granted a stay.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether arbitration should be stayed on public policy grounds where the remedy sought might infringe upon the School District’s supervisory responsibilities.
2. Whether arbitration should be stayed because the Association allegedly failed to comply with a contractual pre-grievance informal resolution requirement.
Holding
1. No, because it is possible the arbitrator could fashion a remedy that does not violate public policy, and preemptive judicial intervention is not justified where the arbitrator may use broad powers to fashion a narrowly tailored procedural remedy.
2. No, because questions concerning compliance with a contractual step-by-step grievance process are matters of procedural arbitrability to be resolved by the arbitrators.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized the limited role of courts in reviewing applications to stay arbitration, stating that courts should not interpret contract conditions or determine the merits of a dispute. Citing Board of Educ. v Barni, 51 NY2d 894, 895-896. They should also not stay arbitration merely because the remedy sought might impinge on the board’s supervisory responsibility. A stay is only justified if public policy considerations, embodied in law or statutes, absolutely prohibit the matter from being decided by an arbitrator or certain relief from being granted. Citing Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 631.
Even if the School District remains the ultimate judge of qualifications, the court found it unclear whether the arbitrator’s interpretation or resolution would necessarily substitute the arbitrator’s judgment for the School District’s or require hiring an “unqualified” person. Because relief was possible without violating public policy, the lower court’s stay was premature. As the court noted, “To justify preemptive judicial intervention in the arbitration process, public policy considerations embodied in decisional law or statutes must ‘prohibit, in an absolute sense, particular matters being decided or certain relief being granted by an arbitrator.’” Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 631
Regarding the pre-grievance informal resolution requirement, the Court held that compliance with a step-by-step grievance process is a matter of procedural arbitrability for the arbitrator to decide. The Court highlighted that the collective bargaining agreement in effect provided a three-step grievance process, and that questions concerning compliance with such a process should be resolved by the arbitrators. Citing Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 8.