An arbitration award that is rational and which neither violates strong public policy nor exceeds the power of the arbitrator may not be vacated by the courts

To contact us Click HERE

Anarbitration award that is rational and which neither violates strong publicpolicy nor exceeds the power of the arbitrator may not be vacated by the courts
New York Finger Lakes Region Police Officers Local 195 of Council 82,AFSCME, AFL-CIO (City of Auburn), 2013 NY Slip Op 00844, AppellateDivision, Fourth Department
The Finger Lakes Region Police Officers Local 195 appealed Supreme Court's rejection of its petition to vacate an arbitration award in which thearbitrator had determined that the City of Auburn had not violated the terms ofthe relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA) when it terminated theemployment of one of the members of the Local.
The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s ruling,explaining that "[a]n arbitration award may be vacated if it is irrational,violates a strong public policy, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumeratedlimitation on the arbitrator's power*" Here, and notwithstanding the Local’s arguments to the contrary, theAppellate Division concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA was not irrational, "nor did the arbitrator alter the terms of the CBA based onhis interpretation of its terms so as to exceed his authority."
Citing Communication Workers of Am., Local 1170 vTown of Greece, 85 AD3d 1668, leaveto appeal denied 18 NY3d 802, the Appellate Division noted that anarbitrator is required to interpret and apply the terms of a CBA and while another entity could have applied a different construction tothe relevant provision of the agreement, in this instance “it cannot be stated that the arbitrator gave a completely irrationalconstruction to the provision in dispute and, in effect, exceeded [his]authority by making a new contract for the parties."
* §7511 of the Civil PracticeLaw and Rules sets out a number additional reasons that permit a court to setaside an arbitrator’s award such as a finding of corruption, fraud ormisconduct in procuring the award; the partiality of an arbitrator appointed asa neutral,[except where the award was by confession], or the failure to follow procedures set out in Article 75 unless the party seeking to vacate the award on such grounds continued with the arbitration with notice of the defect[s] without objection.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_00844.htm