Case Name: In the Matter of the Arbitration between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 et al., Respondents, and Village of Johnson City, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of the Arbitration between Village of Johnson City, Appellant, and Johnson City Firefighters Association, Local 921 IAFF, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2011-11-17
Citations: 18 N.Y.3d 32
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Arbitration between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 et al., Respondents, and Village of Johnson City, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of the Arbitration between Village of Johnson City, Appellant, and Johnson City Firefighters Association, Local 921 IAFF, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 32–41

Head Matter:
[958 NE2d 899, 934 NYS2d 770]
In the Matter of the Arbitration between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 et al., Respondents, and Village of Johnson City, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of the Arbitration between Village of Johnson City, Appellant, and Johnson City Firefighters Association, Local 921 IAFF, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Argued October 12, 2011;
decided November 17, 2011
POINTS OF COUNSEL
Coughlin & Gerhart, L.L.P., Binghamton (Paul J. Sweeney, Anna Dmitriev and Katelyn R. Dumont of counsel), for appellant.
I. The Third Department erred by creating a novel and incorrect legal standard when it held that a job security clause was “not too ambiguous” to be enforced, thereby ignoring the stricter legal standard previously articulated by this Court. (Yonkers School Crossing Guard, Union of Westchester Ch., CSEA v City of Yonkers, 39 NY2d 964; Matter of Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268; Matter of Burke v Bowen, 40 NY2d 264; Matter of Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist. at Conklin [Susquehanna Val. Teachers’ Assn.], 37 NY2d 614; Wolkstein v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 103 Misc 2d 1095; Fishgold v Sullivan Dry dock & Repair Corp., 328 US 275; CBS Inc. v International Photographers of the Motion Picture Indus., Local 644, 603 F2d 1061; Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562; Pozament Corp. v AES Westover, LLC, 27 AD3d 1000; Graev v Graev, 11 NY3d 262.) II. The Third Department’s “not too ambiguous” standard created an irreconcilable fissure within the judicial departments. (Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Niagara, Wheatfield, Lewiston & Cambria v Niagara Wheatfield Teachers Assn., 54 AD2d 281; Board of Educ. of New fane Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of New fane, Lockport, Cambria & Wilson v Newfane Teachers Assn., 54 AD2d 1119; Osoba v City of Beacon, 57 AD2d 588; Matter of Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County v Central Council of Teachers, 59 AD2d 942; Matter of Meaney v City of New Rochelle, 58 AD2d 605; Matter of Westchester Ch. Civ. Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 860 v Village of Pelham, 71 AD2d 1027.) III. The Third Department violated public policy when it compelled the arbitration of a job security clause which did not contain an “explicit, unambiguous and comprehensive” waiver of the municipality’s right to eliminate positions. (Sheedy v Pataki, 236 AD2d 92; Nauta v City of Poughkeepsie, 610 F Supp 980; Matter of Kent v Town of Niskayuna, 244 AD2d 829; Matter of Piekielniak v Axelrod, 92 AD2d 968; Abbott v City of Poughkeepsie, 98 Misc 2d 601; Matter of Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268; Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 NY3d 513.)
Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP, Binghamton (Paul T. Sheppard of counsel), for respondents.
I. The issue in dispute is subject to arbitration. (Matter of Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268; Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 NY3d 513; Matter of Burke v Bowen, 40 NY2d 264; North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v North Syracuse Educ. Assn., 45 NY2d 195; Piro v Bowen, 76 AD2d 392; Matter of City of Utica [Zumpano], 91 NY2d 964; Matter of Board of Educ., W. Babylon Union Free School Dist. v West Babylon Teachers Assn., 72 AD2d 766, 52 NY2d 1002; Yonkers School Crossing Guard Union of Westchester Ch., CSEA v City of Yonkers, 39 NY2d 964; Matter of Madison-Oneida Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v Mills, 4 NY3d 51; Fishgold v Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 US 275.) II. The parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute. (Matter of City of Yonkers [Cassidy], 58 AD2d 627, 44 NY2d 784; New York Inst. of Technology v Council of Metropolitan & Old Westbury Chs., Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors, 47 AD2d 659; Sisters of St. John the Baptist, Providence Rest Convent v Geraghty Constructor, 67 NY2d 997; Matter of Amalgamated Tr. Union, Local Div. 1321 [Capital Dist. Tr. Sys., No. One, Capital Dist. Transp. Dist], 300 AD2d 809; Matter of County of Albany [AFSCME, Council 82], 114 AD2d 732; Matter of Capital Dist. Transp. Auth. [Planz], 68 AD3d 1499; Matter of City of Ithaca [Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Assn., IAFF, Local 737], 29 AD3d 1129; Matter of City of Binghamton v Binghamton Civ. Serv. Forum, 79 AD2d 729; Matter of County of Sullivan [Sullivan County Empls. Assn.], 235 AD2d 748.)
Nancy E. Hoffman, Albany, and Kara L. Hilburger for Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, amicus curiae.
The lower court properly held that the “no-layoff’ provision in the collective bargaining agreement is a valid job security provision and is thus arbitrable under the broad arbitration clause under the collective bargaining agreement. (Matter of Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268; Matter of Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. [Buffalo Bd. of Educ.], 90 NY2d 364; Matter of City of Long Beach v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc.—Long Beach Unit, 8 NY3d 465; Matter of City of Johns-town [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273; Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d 411; Matter of Burke v Bowen, 40 NY2d 264; Yonkers School Crossing Guard Union of Westchester Ch., CSEA v City of Yonkers, 39 NY2d 964; Matter of Houghton v Schuler, 61 AD2d 1104; County of Broome v Deputy Sheriffs Benevolent Assn. of Broome County, 57 AD2d 496; Matter of Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist. at Conklin [Susquehanna Val. Teachers’ Assn.], 37 NY2d 614.)
Hinman Straub P.C., Albany (John R. Saccocio and John F. Black of counsel),
for New York State Professional Fire Fighters Association, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO, amicus curiae. The Appellate Division’s reasoning in this case is consistent with this Court’s decision in Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807 (8 NY3d 513 [2007]) and respects the strong public policy of New York State, which favors collective bargaining and arbitration. (Matter of City of Watertown v State of N.Y. Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 95 NY2d 73; Matter of City of Schenectady v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 85 NY2d 480; Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 75 NY2d 660; Matter of Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. [Buffalo Bd. of Educ.], 90 NY2d 364; Matter of New York City Dept. of Sanitation v MacDonald, 87 NY2d 650; Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 99 NY2d 1.)

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Pigott, J.
The issue on appeal is whether the parties are required to arbitrate the meaning of a "no-layoff' clause in their collective bargaining agreement. Given the particular contract in this case, we conclude that they are not.
I
On May 22, 2008, the Village of Johnson City and Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters, Local 921 IAFF executed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for a term running from June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2011. The CBA contains a no-layoff clause that states, in full: "A. The Village shall not lay-off any member of the bargaining unit during the term of this contract. B. The Village shall not be required to 'back fill' hire additional members to meet staffing level of expired agreement." The parties agreed that disputes concerning the interpretation of this clause, and any other provision of the CBA, should be resolved pursuant to a series of steps, culminating in arbitration before the Public Employment Relations Board if the parties were to reach a stalemate.
On May 12, 2009, the Village voted to abolish various positions within the government, including six firefighter positions, citing budgetary necessity. Pointing to the no-layoff clause, the Union filed a grievance with the Village, which was denied. The Union then served the Village with a notice of its intent to arbitrate. Both parties then sought relief in Supreme Court, the Union pursuant to a CPLR article 75 proceeding to enjoin the Village from terminating the six firefighters pending a determination through arbitration. Simultaneously, the Village brought a proceeding to stay any arbitration.
Supreme Court denied the Village's application, and granted the Union's cross application to compel arbitration. The Appellate Division affirmed in both cases, holding that the no-layoff clause was not subject to any prohibition against arbitration and that, given the CBA's broad grievance and arbitration provision, the issue was arbitrable (72 AD3d 1235, 1237-1238 [3d Dept 2010]). We granted the Village leave to appeal (15 NY3d 710 [2010]) and now reverse.
II
The Village contends that the termination of the six firefighters does not fall within the no-layoff clause and therefore is not arbitrable under the contract. We agree. Not all job security clauses are valid and enforceable, nor are they "valid and enforceable under all circumstances" (Matter of Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268, 275 [1976]). This Court has long held that a purported job security provision does not violate public policy, and therefore is valid and enforceable, only if the provision is "explicit," the CBA extends for a "reasonable period of time," and the CBA "was not negotiated in a period of a legislatively declared financial emergency between parties of unequal bargaining power" (Matter of Burke v Bowen, 40 NY2d 264, 266, 267 [1976] [upholding as valid and enforceable a "job security" clause that provided for a minimum number of firefighters for the CBA's term and "that in no event shall the presently agreed upon minimum be readjusted downward"]). A purported "job security" clause that is not explicit in its terms is violative of public policy, rendering it invalid and unenforceable.
In Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, this Court found arbitrable a "job security" clause that stated that "[d]uring the life of this contract no person in this bargaining unit shall be terminated due to budgetary reasons or abolition of programs but only for unsatisfactory job performance and provided for under the Tenure Law," holding that the "[m]ost important" thing about the clause's language was that it was "explicit in its protection of the [workers] from abolition of their positions due to budgetary stringencies" (40 NY2d at 272, 275-276 [emphasis supplied]).
In contrast, in Yonkers School Crossing Guard Union of Westchester Ch., CSEA v City of Yonkers (39 NY2d 964, 965 [1976] [Crossing Guard Union]), we concluded that the CBA language "Present members may be removed for cause but will not be removed as a result of Post elimination" did not constitute a "job security" clause in the manner of the clauses we examined in Burke and Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, holding that the clauses in the latter two cases "were explicit, unambiguous and comprehensive," while the one in Crossing Guard Union was ambiguous.
Contrary to the Union's contention, the no-layoff clause in this CBA is not arbitrable because it is not explicit, unambiguous and comprehensive. From a public policy standpoint, our requirement that "job security" clauses meet this stringent test derives from the notion that before a municipality bargains away its right to eliminate positions or terminate or lay off workers for budgetary, economic or other reasons, the parties must explicitly agree that the municipality is doing so and the scope of the provision must evidence that intent. Absent compliance with these requirements, a municipality's budgetary decisions will be routinely challenged by employees, and its ability to abolish positions or terminate workers will be subject to the whim of arbitrators.
The pertinent portion of the no-layoff clause here states that the "Village shall not lay-off any member of the bargaining unit during the term of this contract" but this language, in and of itself, does not explicitly prohibit the Village from abolishing firefighter positions out of budgetary necessity (cf. Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 40 NY2d at 275-276). Unlike the clause in Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, the clause here does not explicitly protect the firefighters from the abolition of their positions due to economic and budgetary stringencies. That is not to say that the parties could not have bargained for such a broad clause, only that it is unclear on its face whether they did so at all, which means that the clause is hardly unambiguous (see Crossing Guard Union, 39 NY2d at 965).
The term "layoff' is undefined in the CBA, and is open to different and reasonable interpretations. Indeed, the parties' disagreement over whether the term "layoff' constitutes a permanent or nonpermanent job loss, and whether the Village's abolition of the firefighter positions constituted a layoff, underscores its ambiguity. Moreover, the clause does not comprehensively prohibit the Village from abolishing firefighter positions, and, given its narrow and limited language, it cannot be construed as such. Had the Union desired that its members be protected from the elimination of firefighter positions, it could have bargained for such protections.
Simply put, because the clause is not explicit, unambiguous and comprehensive, there is nothing for the Union to grieve or for an arbitrator to decide. Having concluded that this dispute is not arbitrable for reasons of public policy, we need not reach the issue of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the Village's application to stay the arbitration should be granted, and the Union's application to compel arbitration should be denied.