You are here: / / THE ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT...
, , , ,

THE ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT IRRATIONAL; THE AWARD MUST BE CONFIRMED EVEN WHERE THE COURT DISAGREES WITH THE INTERPRETATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s ruling that petitioner firefighters were entitled to paid emergency leave should have been confirmed. In recent weeks, the appellate courts across the state have been emphasizing the finality of an arbitrator’s award, even where the court might have decided the matter differently:

“[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” … . “The court must vacate an arbitration award where the arbitrator exceeds a limitation on his or her power as set forth in the CBA [collective bargaining agreement]” … . The court, however, lacks the authority to “examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one” … .

Here, the arbitrator merely interpreted and applied the provisions of the relevant CBA, as he had the authority to do … . We are powerless to set aside that interpretation even if we disagree with it … . Contrary to respondent’s urging, the arbitrator’s determination was not irrational; nothing in the CBA suggests that a request for emergency leave may not be made prior to the start of a tour of duty, and the arbitrator provided a justification for his determination … . Matter of Local 32, Intl. Assn. of Fire Fighters, A.F.L.-C.I.O.-C.L.C. (City of Utica), 2024 NY Slip Op 04878, Fourth Dept 10-4-24

Practice Point: The appellate courts are making it clear that an arbitrator’s award should not be tampered with by the courts as long as the arbitrator has not exceeded his or her powers.

 

You might also like
PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE.
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. NO SHOWING OF DEFENDANT’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE INJURIES.
Claims Against the State Based Upon Recurrent Flooding Properly In Supreme Court as Opposed to the Court of Claims/Criteria for Inverse Condemnation of Property Explained (Not Met Here)
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED BECAUSE IT WAS INDUCED BY THE JUDGE’S PROMISE THAT ALL THE COURT’S ORDERS COULD BE APPEALED; IN FACT, THE DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION THAT TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WERE DUPLICITOUS COULD NOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Prior Court Ruling Can Not Be Altered Even If Erroneous
Court in Contract Action Does Not Have Power to Vary 9% Interest Rate
Police-Monitored, Recorded Phone Conversation Between Minor Victim and Defendant Was Admissible
Discovery of Trade Secrets Should Have Been Allowed Upon Execution of Confidentiality Agreement, Documents Indispensable to Defense and Not Otherwise Available

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

INFANT PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY A MALE... CRITERIA FOR AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE; THE NECESSITY...