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
QUESTION OF FACT, CREATED BY CONFLICTING EXPERTS, WHETHER OUTSIDE STEEL STAIRCASE WAS SAFE FOR USE IN WET WEATHER, PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
OFFICE-BASED SURGERY CENTERS, UNLIKE HOSPITALS AND AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTERS, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR FACILITY FEES UNDER THE NO-FAULT LAW.
MOTHER IS PRECLUDED FROM RECOVERING PURELY EMOTIONAL DAMAGES FOR PRENATAL TORTS BASED ON A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT THEORY; THE CHILD WAS BORN ALIVE IN SERIOUS CONDITION AND DIED SOON THEREAFTER; MOTHER ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO THE FAILED VACUUM EXTRACTION PROCEDURE (CT APP).
THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, REVERSED THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WHICH HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT DURING A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE BIAS OF A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ISSUES AND FACTS RAISED IN THE APPEAL BUT NOT CONSIDERED BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT (CT APP).
MERE USE OF ANOTHER’S PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, LIKE A CREDIT CARD NUMBER, ESTABLISHES A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK’S IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE, THERE IS NO NEED TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT ASSUMED THE VICTIM’S IDENTITY IN SOME ADDITIONAL WAY (CT APP).
THE YOUTH PART OF COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WARRANTED GRANTING THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF THE 17-YEAR-OLD’S PROSECUTION TO FAMILY COURT (CT APP).
THE COUNTY, UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL), HAD THE POWER TO CONDEMN AN AREA ADJACENT TO AN OFFICE BULIDING FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT; THE ALLOWED PURPOSE UNDER THE EDPL WAS “COMMERCIAL:” THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PURPOSE WAS “HEALTHCARE,” NOT “COMMERCIAL,” BECAUSE THE BUILDING WOULD HOUSE DOCTORS’ OFFICES WAS REJECTED (CT APP).
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEES FOR CIVIL SERVICE EXAMS IS NOT A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION UNDER THE TAYLOR LAW (CT APP).

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 © 2026 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...