Matter of Case v. Monroe Community College, 89 N.Y.2d 438 (1997)
When a union represents a member in arbitration, service of the arbitration award on the union constitutes service on the individual member for purposes of calculating the time to appeal the award, regardless of whether the union pursues an appeal.
Summary
This case addresses whether serving an arbitration award on a union representing an aggrieved member counts as service on the member for appeal timeliness. The Court of Appeals held that it does. Case, a college employee, was subject to a grievance initiated by his union. After an unfavorable arbitration ruling was served on the union, Case, dissatisfied, attempted to appeal individually after the statutory period. The Court found that because Case elected union representation, service to the union acted as service to him. Therefore, his individual appeal was untimely. This decision clarifies that union representation in arbitration carries with it the responsibility of the union to act as the agent for service, impacting the individual’s appeal timeline.
Facts
Petitioner Case was a non-tenured employee at Monroe Community College, serving as Director of Athletics.
A student accused Case of sexual harassment, leading the College to not renew his employment contract.
The faculty union, of which Case was a member, initiated a grievance on his behalf, alleging procedural violations in the non-renewal process.
An arbitrator denied the grievance, finding no violation of the collective bargaining agreement and concluding Case was properly terminated for insubordination.
The arbitrator mailed the award to both the union and the College on September 8, 1993; both acknowledged receipt around September 14, 1993.
Case informed the union of his dissatisfaction with the award on September 22, 1993, requesting an appeal.
The union declined to appeal the decision.
Case then filed an individual petition to vacate or modify the award on March 14, 1994.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied Case’s petition and the College’s cross-motion to dismiss.
The Appellate Division modified the award, striking the portion stating Case was “properly terminated,” and affirmed the decision as modified.
The College appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether service of an arbitration award upon the union representing an aggrieved member constitutes service upon that individual member, for purposes of measuring the timeliness of an appeal from the award under CPLR 7511(a).
Holding
Yes, because when an individual elects to be represented by their union in a grievance proceeding, the union acts as their agent for service of relevant documents, including the arbitration award.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, emphasizing that procedural rules dictate that once counsel (or a designated agent, like a union) appears, statutory time requirements begin when that representative is served.
The court drew upon the precedent set in Matter of Bianca v. Frank, 43 N.Y.2d 168 (1977) which underscored the importance of serving counsel, extends to union representatives.
Citing Matter of Beckman v. Greentree Sec., 87 N.Y.2d 566 (1996), the court reiterated that due process requires adequate notice and opportunity to object, not necessarily actual receipt by the individual.
The court stated, “When an individual elects to be represented by his or her union, regardless of whether the union assigns an attorney or a layperson as the representative, that individual has designated the union as his or her agent for service during the pendency of the entire grievance proceeding. Hence, the grievant would be bound by all limitations periods applicable to the union.”
The court noted that the individual still retains the right to pursue further proceedings individually if the union declines, as established in Matter of Diaz v. Pilgrim State Psychiatric Ctr., 62 N.Y.2d 693 (1984), but the timeliness is measured from service on the union.
Because the union received the award on September 14, 1993, Case’s March 14, 1994, petition was untimely.