Matter of Greenburgh No. 11 Union Free School Dist. v. Greenburgh No. 11 Fedn. of Teachers, 82 N.Y.2d 770 (1993)
Controversies regarding arbitration awards should be decided based on the public policy in effect at the time of the decision, not at the time the collective bargaining agreement was created or the dispute arose.
Summary
This case addresses whether a 1986 amendment to Education Law § 1711, allowing negotiated agreements to modify superintendents’ power to transfer teachers, applies to a 1988 arbitration award resolving a dispute under a 1985 collective bargaining agreement. The school board challenged the award, arguing it violated public policy at the time of the agreement. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the public policy in effect at the time of the decision (1993), not the policy at the time of the agreement (1985), should govern. The court confirmed the arbitration award, finding it consistent with the amended Education Law § 1711 and current public policy.
Facts
A teacher was transferred to a different grade level by the Greenburgh Board of Education without considering seniority, as stipulated in the 1985 collective bargaining agreement. At the time of the agreement, public policy (as reflected in Matter of Sweet Home Cent. School Dist. v Sweet Home Educ. Assn.) forbade delegating teacher transfer decisions to negotiation. An arbitrator’s award in 1988 ordered the teacher’s return to her original kindergarten class. By 1988, however, the Legislature had amended Education Law § 1711, nullifying the public policy reflected in the Sweet Home case. The school board challenged the arbitrator’s award.
Procedural History
The case began as an arbitration proceeding under the 1985 collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the teachers’ federation. The School District then sought to vacate the arbitration award. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the School District. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing the CPLR article 75 petition and confirming the arbitration award.
Issue(s)
Whether the public policy reflected in a 1986 amendment to Education Law § 1711 should apply to the 1988 arbitral resolution of a dispute under a 1985 collective bargaining agreement.
Holding
Yes, because controversies of this kind should be decided on the basis of public policy operative at the time of decision, not at the time the agreement was made or the dispute arose.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the relevant public policy is that which exists at the time of the decision, citing Matter of Board of Trustees [Maplewood Teachers’ Assn.] and Matter of Hodes v Axelrod. The court emphasized that the issue was not about retroactive application of the amended statute, but rather the application of current public policy. The amended Education Law § 1711 explicitly allows for negotiated agreements to modify the power and duties of superintendents regarding teacher transfers. The court stated, “the power and duties of superintendents of schools with regard to the transfer of teachers may be modified by an agreement negotiated pursuant to the provisions of the civil service law” (L 1986, ch 843, § 1 [legislative intent]). The court also rejected the School Board’s argument that the arbitrator’s award was irrational, without providing specific details.