A court’s power to vacate an arbitration award is limited

To contact us Click HERE
A court’s power to vacate an arbitration award is limited
Professional, Clerical, Tech., Employees Assn. (Board ofEduc. for Buffalo City Sch. Dist.), 2013 NY Slip Op 00612, Appellate Division,Fourth Department

The issue before the arbitrator was whether the Board ofEducation’s selection process used in its filling two vacancies of a newlycreated title, Assistant Management Analyst, violated the collectivebargaining agreement between the parties. The arbitrator concluded that it hadnot.
Essentially the arbitrator rejected the Association’sargument that the collective bargaining agreement provided that seniority"trumps" a supervisor's discretion in selecting the individual tofill the vacancies in question.
Supreme Court granted the Professional, Clerical, Tech.,Employees Assn.’s application to vacate an arbitration award.
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lowercourt’s ruling and granted the Board of Education’s the cross petition seekingto confirm the arbitration award, explainingthat Supreme Court erred in vacating the award as the award was not irrationaland the arbitrator did not exceed a specific limitation on her authority.*  
Noting that “It is well established that "anarbitrator's rulings, unlike a trial court's, are largely unreviewable,"citing Matter of Falzone, 15 NY3d 530, the Appellate Division said that "acourt may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong publicpolicy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitationon the arbitrator's power."
As the Court of Appeals held in New York StateCorrectional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94NY2d 321, 326), "Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings,interpretation of the contract and judgment concerning remedies. A court cannotexamine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for thatof the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be thebetter one. Indeed, even in circumstances where an arbitrator makes errors oflaw or fact, courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the awardto their sense of justice."
* The Appellate Division alsoheld that Supreme Court erred in determining that the arbitrator impermissiblymodified the collective bargaining agreement.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_00612.htm