You are here: / / PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT...
, ,

PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) limited the right to demand arbitration to the union and not the fired employee:

From the dissent:

The language of CBA clearly grants the employee the right to elect arbitration. Even were the agreement ambiguous in that regard, it must be construed in favor of the employee’s right to demand arbitration. New York has established a policy favoring arbitration … , and the CBA itself provides that “in order to establish a more harmonious and cooperative relationship between the County. . . and its [p]ublic [e]mployees. . . [t]he provisions of this resolution shall be liberally construed.”

The majority’s contrary interpretation — that the CBA gives the right to proceed to arbitration only to the union — would mean that the employee could “elect” to exercise “his/her rights” only where the union agrees to arbitrate — a restriction that does not appear in the agreement. The employee may not know at the time of election whether the union will pursue arbitration, and therefore could not know the scope of “his/her rights” until it is too late. Further, the rights-granting language in the CBA treats the arbitration right and the [Civil Service Law] 75 right in parallel, emphasizing the employee’s right to choose. Matter of Widrick (Carpinelli), 2018 NY Slip Op 04780, CtApp 6-28-18

​ARBITRATION (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/UNIONS (ARBITRATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))

You might also like
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS VALID, BUT THE POLICE OFFICERS SAW NOTHING TO INDICATE A WEAPON WAS IN THE CAR; THE SEARCH OF THE CAR AND SEIZURE OF A WEAPON FROM AN OPEN PURSE IN THE BACK SEAT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST DEPT).
Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Is Available to a Persistent Felony Offender As Long As the Offender Has Not Been Convicted of Any of the Serious Offenses Enumerated in Correction Law 803
COUNTY COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING BEFORE A JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICER TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVERRULING PRECEDENT, DETERMINED THE AUTOPSY REPORTS WERE “TESTIMONIAL” IN NATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH AN EXPERT WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE AUTOPSIES; ADMISSION OF THE REPORTS AND THE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM (CT APP).
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF ANNOTATED TRIAL EXHIBITS DURING PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION WAS PROPER BECAUSE THE ANNOTATIONS WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE TRIAL EVIDENCE.
Complaint Stated a “Mixed Opinion” Defamation Cause of Action—A “Mixed Opinion” Statement Implies It Is Based Upon Facts Unknown to the Reader—Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss Should Not Have Been Granted
IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP).
ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEGLECT ALLEGATION AGAINST NURSING HOME FOR SYSTEMIC FAILURE PROPERLY FOUND... RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED...