Source: https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2016/07/an-arbitration-award-must-be-vacated-if.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-30 06:43:24
Document Index: 768947246

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1192', '§1192', '§1192', '§260', '§7511', '§7511']

Type in a key word or two concerning the subject or issue in which you are interested in the box at the upper left and tap enter to access any relevant material posted. Friday, July 15, 2016
award must be vacated if a party's rights were impaired by an arbitrator exceeding
his or her power in making the determination
Matter of O'Flynn (Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs'
Assn., Inc.), 2016 NY Slip Op. 05261, Appellate Division, Fourth
Department The Monroe County Sheriff’s Department terminated then
Deputy Sergeant Paul Doser from his position after Doser was involved in a
one-car rollover accident and it was determined that he was driving while
intoxicated (DWI). The appointing
authority filed disciplinary charges against Doser alleging: (1) Driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(3); (2) Aggravated DWI with a blood alcohol content of .18
percent or greater in violation of Vehicle and
Traffic Law §1192(2-a)(a); (3) Aggravated DWI with a child in the car in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192(2-a)(b); (4) Endangering the welfare of a child in violation of Penal Law §260.10(1); and (5) Engaging in conduct unbecoming
of his position. Consistent with the
controlling collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Department held a
administrative disciplinary hearing at which Doser was represented by the Monroe County Deputy
Sheriffs' Association, Inc. [Association]. Doser was found guilty of all the
charges filed against him and the penalty imposed was termination. Doser then filed a
grievance challenging the Department’s disciplinary decision and, pursuant to
the CBA, a hearing was held before an arbitrator.
At the arbitration the
arbitrator found that certain evidence, including the chemical test results
measuring Doser's blood alcohol content, was inadmissible. Refusing to consider
such evidence, the arbitrator found that the second and fifth charges were not
supported by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed those charges but sustained
charges one, three, and four. Comparing the
penalty imposed on Doser, termination, with the penalties imposed on other
officers also involved in similar DWI-related violations, the arbitrator noted
that none of the other officers had been terminated. Concluding that Doser's
termination was arbitrary and capricious, the arbitrator ruled [1] that demotion,
rather than termination, was the appropriate penalty and [2] that Doser was to be
reinstated by the Department and compensated for lost pay.
filed a CPLR §7511 petition seeking to vacate the arbitrator's determination
and award. Finding that the arbitrator “exceeded his authority by improperly
neglecting to consider certain evidence” received in the course of the
disciplinary hearing, Supreme Court vacated the award in its entirety, and ordered a
rehearing before a different arbitrator. The Association
appealed the Supreme Court’s decision. The Appellate Division, however, sustained
the lower court’s ruling, explaining that CPLR §7511(b) provides that an
arbitration award must be vacated if, as relevant in this appeal, “a party's
rights were impaired by an arbitrator who exceeded his [or her] power or so imperfectly
executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted
was not made." The Appellate
Division observed that "[i]t is well settled that a court may vacate an
arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or
clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power"
and “[o]utside of these narrowly circumscribed exceptions, courts lack authority
to review arbitral decisions, even where an arbitrator has made an error of law
or fact." The court concluded that the arbitrator, in this instance, had “clearly exceeded his authority
as provided by the CBA.” Rather than comply
with the provisions in the CBA that "[t]he arbitrator shall review the
record of the disciplinary hearing and determine if the finding of guilt was
based upon clear and convincing evidence," the arbitrator, instead of reviewing the record
from the hearing, considered only a portion of the record after having
decided to exclude certain evidence from his review. Having failed to
review all the evidence that, in this instance, the arbitrator was required to review, the Appellate Division concluded
that Supreme Court had properly found that the arbitrator exceeded his
authority and vacated the arbitration award. In so doing, the Appellate
Division rejected the Association’s argument that “any error in this regard was
harmless.” Rather, said the court, the arbitrator’s refusal to consider the
inappropriately-excluded evidence directly resulted in the dismissal of two out
of the five charges.
Appellate Division rejected the Association’s claim that even if that error did
not impact the arbitrator's determination as to the penalty to be imposed, the
imposition of the penalty of termination was arbitrary and capricious in and of itself. The Appellate Division disagreed, explaining by the arbitrator's making comparisons between the conduct
alleged against Doser and that committed by other officers in other, similar, cases after excluding
certain evidence against Doser resulted making a comparison without the benefit of a
full review of the record.
As to the objection
of the Association to Supreme Court’s ordering a rehearing before a different
arbitrator, the Appellate Division said that in “vacating an arbitration award, a
court has the discretion to ‘order a rehearing and determination of all or any
of the issues either before the same arbitrator or before a new arbitrator.’"
As the arbitrator making the decision challenged by the Department exceeded his
authority under the CBA, the Appellate Division said it conclude that the court
did not abuse its discretion in ordering that a different arbitrator conduct
the rehearing and affirmed the Supreme Court’s order vacating the initial
arbitrator’s opinion and award and ordering a rehearing before a different arbitrator.
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_05261.htm