NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS v STATE OF NEW YORK


\|

Keywords & Phrases

CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I99_0184, Arbitrator, Award, Public Policy, Violates, Employee, Parties, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Matter, Correction, Supra, Reinstatement, Vacate, Charges, Kuhnel, Union, Determination, United Paperworkers, Appellate Division, Explicit, Affirm, Security, Dispute, Common, Ny2d, Personnel, Affiliation, Prison System, Misco , ContentID: 120251699

Case Documents

1999-12-21

OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 125608

6 pages
HTML

Total Documents: 1 document , 6 pages

Price: $ 19.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

AWARD
PUBLIC POLICY
COURT
VIOLATES
EMPLOYEE
PARTIES
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
MATTER
CORRECTION
LAW
SUPRA
REINSTATEMENT
VACATE
CHARGES
KUHNEL
UNION
DETERMINATION
UNITED PAPERWORKERS
APPELLATE DIVISION
EXPLICIT
AFFIRM
SECURITY
DISPUTE
COMMON
NY2D
PERSONNEL
AFFILIATION
PRISON SYSTEM
MISCO



  IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND POLICE BENEVOLENT
  ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,
  APPELLANTS.

    94 N.Y.2d 321 (1999).
    December 21, 1999

   3 No. 201

   (99 NY Int. 0184)
   Decided December 21, 1999
     _________________________________________________________________

    99 N.Y. Int. 0184.
    December 21, 1999

   (99 NY Int. 0184)
   Decided December 21, 1999
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.
     _________________________________________________________________

   WESLEY, J.:

   The issue on this appeal by the State is whether an arbitral award
   reinstating a correctional officer should be vacated because it
   violates a well-defined and explicit public policy of this State. The
   parties concede that the grievanceprocedure here was the proper
   subject of arbitration, and do not question the power of the
   arbitrator to decide this proceeding and reinstate the employee.
   Furthermore, there is no explicit public policy of this State which
   proscribes the reinstatement of an employee following a not guilty
   determination of the charges lodged against him. Therefore we conclude
   that the award should not be vacated and affirm the Appellate Division
   order so holding.

   Petitioner Edward Kuhnel is a correctional officer employed by the
   Department of Correctional Services. He was suspended from duty
   because on December 10, 1996 -- the 55^th anniversary of Hitler's
   declaration of war on the United States -- he flew a Nazi flag from
   the front porch of his home. Kuhnel's display of the flag was reported
   by several newspapers throughout the State.

   The notice of discipline charged Kuhnel with violating sections 2.1

SNIPPETS:

IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND POLICE BENEVOLENT

The issue on this appeal by the State is whether an arbitral award reinstating a correctional

The parties concede that the grievanceprocedure here was the proper subject of arbitration,

there is no explicit public policy of this State which proscribes the reinstatement of an

Therefore we conclude that the award should not be vacated and affirm the Appellate Division

The notice of discipline charged Kuhnel with violating sections 2.1 and 2.7 of the employee

%No employee, whether on or off duty, shall so comport himself as to reflect discredit upon

The notice also indicated that Kuhnel's actions "have endangered the safety and security of

Pursuant to the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement between

Regarding the second charge, the arbitrator determined that other than flying the flag, the

Petitioners commenced this article 75 proceeding to confirm the arbitration award;