Posted on December 26, 2008 by Kevin Sheerin

Arbitration decision regarding BTA FMLA leave upheld

Matter of Bridge & Tunnel Officers Benevolent Association v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

In January 2005, the Bridge and Tunnel Officers Benevolent Association changed its policy and required employees to substitute paid annual leave for FMLA leave. Prior to this, petitioner allowed employees to choice whether to take FMLA leave paid or unpaid. The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority then filed a grievance arguing that the new requirement violated its members’ rights under the collective bargaining agreement.

The grievance went to arbitration where the arbitrator sustained the grievance but left it to both parties to come up with a compromise that would take into account the needs of both, and retained his jurisdiction to provide a solution if they failed at doing so. In May 2006, the arbitrator directed that respondent could require an employee to charge up to 25% of his accrued annual vacation leave for FMLA leave purposes before giving him the option of taking unpaid FMLA leave. This decision was then appealed and modified in Supreme Court which then led to this review.

The Court impermissibly substituted its judgment and interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement by modifying the arbitrator’s May 2006 determination. The arbitrator’s decision was not irrational and thus should not have been modified.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision modifying the May 2006 arbitration award without costs, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Read the full article here.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on July 16, 2007 by Kevin Sheerin

Arbitration agreement in CBA violates Civil Service Law

                          City of Long Beach v. Civil Service Employees Association

This Court of Appeals case centered on whether or not issues submitted by the Civil Service Employees Association were subject to arbitration.

This the history of the case includes a report issued by the New York State Civil Service Commission in the year 2004 noting that Long Beach had poor control over its provisional appointments in the civil service. Most importantly several positions in the competitive class have been filled with provisional appointments and one had been filled provisionally for a total of 19 years.

The city determined that the provisional appointments violated Civil Service Law and terminated the employees. The CSEA filed grievances and demanded arbitration alleging that the employees were tenured.

The city brought an action to stop the arbitration. The Supreme Court granted the motion to stay the arbitration and the Appellate Division affirmed. Their reasoning behind the decision is that a provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement to arbitrate these disputes violated Civil Service Law.

Citing Civil Service Law section 65 (1) the court found that provisional appointments are allowed when there is no eligible list available for filling a vacancy in a competitive class and then for only a maximum of nine months. Furthermore, once a provisional employee has been in a position four months the City must hold a Civil Service examination. Section 65 allows no tenure to provisional employees and the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the C. S. E.A. is meaningless in light of the Civil Service Law.

Tags: , , , , , ,