You are here: / / THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE AWARD OF BACK PAY...
, ,

THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE AWARD OF BACK PAY TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO FACED DISCIPLINARY ACTION RELATING TO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BUT WAS ULTIMATELY ACQUITTED AFTER TRIAL; THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the arbitrator exceeded his authority in awarding back pay to a corrections officer (Spratley) who was terminated by the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS) after shooting someone while off-duty. The officer was found not guilty of the criminal offense but was subject to disciplinary action based upon the incident:

… Section 8.4 of the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] sets forth the procedures under which DOCCS may suspend an employee without pay prior to the service of a notice of discipline and the limited circumstances under which back pay is owed following that act. Spratley was suspended without pay pursuant to section 8.4 (a) (2), which, in relevant part, authorizes that step for “an employee charged with the commission of a crime.” The same section provides that, where DOCCS fails to serve a notice of discipline within 30 days of the suspension or seven days after learning of a disposition of the criminal charges, “whichever occurs first,” an award of back pay is called for. There is nothing to suggest, and the arbitrator did not find, that either of those conditions were satisfied. … Section 8.4 (a) (5) provides another path for an award of back pay where the suspended employee does not face related disciplinary action and is “not found guilty” of the pending criminal charges, but Spratley did face related disciplinary action. The CBA accordingly contains no provision for the “retroactive” invalidation of the interim suspension and award of back pay under the circumstances presented, and the arbitrator, who was expressly barred by a term of the CBA from adding to, subtracting from or otherwise modifying its provisions, was powerless to add one … . Thus, the arbitrator exceeded his authority in making an award of back pay, and Supreme Court should have granted respondents’ cross motion to the extent of vacating that award. Matter of Spratley (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision), 2020 NY Slip Op 01424, Third Dept 2-27-20

 

You might also like
PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROCURE ANOTHER ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT AFTER THE COURT REDUCED THE CHARGE RENDERED THE INDICTMENT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, REQUIRING DISMISSAL AFTER TRIAL DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE AND THE PRESENTATION OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE REDUCED CHARGE (THIRD DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT).
No Employer-Employee Relationship—Agency Places Waiters and Bartenders with Clients for Catered Functions
NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN TIME TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE GRAND JURY; INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Invocation of Right to Counsel When Not in Custody Can Be Withdrawn Without Attorney Present
CLAIMANT ACCEPTED $10,000 AND AGREED TO RESIGN IN GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PRECLUDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
IN THIS “ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” AND “FALSIYFING BUSINESS RECORDS” PROSECUTION, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED AFTER A HEARING OF WHICH HE HAD NOTICE AND IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE HIS ANSWERING “NO” TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FALSE; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

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

ONCE A COURT SENTENCES A DEFENDANT TO SHOCK INCARCERATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF... DRIVERS FOR A LIMOUSINE SERVICE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE...