IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v. MALCOLM D. MACDONALD, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
87 N.Y.2d 650, 664 N.E.2d 1218, 642 N.Y.S.2d 156 (1996).
March 26, 1996
1 No. 63(1996 NY Int. 53)
Decided March 26, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Elaine R. Witkoff, for Appellants.
Victoria A. Donoghue, for Respondents McDonald and NYC BCB.
Robin Roach, for Respondent District Council 37.
BELLACOSA, J.:
The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining determined that an
alleged employee disciplinary grievance was subject to arbitration.
The lower courts upheld the Board's determination and concluded that
it did not impinge on public policy. The New York City Department of
Sanitation appeals to this Court by our grant of leave to appeal. The
issue presented is whether the Board's determination of arbitrability
offends public policy and whether it is otherwise sustainable.
Richard Diamond was employed by the Sanitation Department as a
project manager of a facility in Maspeth, Queens. His civil service
title is Civil Engineer, and he is a member of District Council 37,
Local 375, AFSCME. In November 1991, Diamond wrote a letter to the
Director of Construction complaining about certain personnel
assignments and work procedures, which he claimed were being
implemented without his approval or consultation. The grievance
alleges that the Director responded by calling Diamond an
"incompetent" and told him that he would soon be transferred to the
Department's facility at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island
(approximately 20 miles from the Maspeth facility). On or about
November 19, 1991, Diamond was transferred from Maspeth to Fresh Kills
and, subsequently, on November 21, Diamond met with his immediate
supervisor and the Director to discuss the transfer. During this
conversation, the Director is claimed to have again stated that
Diamond was transferred because he was an "incompetent."
Respondent District Council 37 filed a grievance on behalf of Diamond
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
for Respondents McDonald and NYC BCB.
The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining determined that an alleged employee
The issue presented is whether the Board's determination of arbitrability offends public
In November 1991, Diamond wrote a letter to the Director of Construction complaining about
The grievance alleges that the Director responded by calling Diamond an "incompetent" and
Respondent District Council 37 filed a grievance on behalf of Diamond with the New York City
The Board, with two of its seven members dissenting, granted arbitration to the extent of
It argued that the dispute was not within the scope of the arbitration clause and that
Supreme Court denied and dismissed the Department's petition, holding that the collective
The threshold for determining whether a valid, enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists
v Cohoes Teachers Assn., 40 NY2d 774, 778), judicial intervention to stay arbitration on
We agree with the courts below that no statute or otherwise manifest public policy has been
The Department's suggestion, that a transfer decision is a nondelegable management function
Therefore, in reviewing the Board's interpretation of the scope of this provision, we must
|
