| Matter of Board of Educ. of Schenectady City School Dist.(Schenectady Fedn. of Teachers) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02716 [61 AD3d 1175] |
| April 9, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Arbitration between Board of Education ofSchenectady City School District, Respondent, and Schenectady Federation of Teachers,Appellant. |
—[*1] Shari Greenleaf, Schenectady City School District, Schenectady, for respondent.
Peters, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kramer, J.), entered July 23, 2008 inSchenectady County, which granted petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stayarbitration between the parties.
At all relevant times, petitioner and respondent were parties to a collective bargainingagreement (hereinafter CBA) which stated that "[a]ll teachers may be required to attend no morethan three (3) evening meetings a year." The CBA provided for a three-step grievance processwhich culminated in binding arbitration. Several teachers filed a grievance, for themselves "andall others affected," seeking compensation for their attendance at an additional evening meeting.No action was taken on the grievance at the first two steps, as the teachers and later respondentfailed to specify which other employees were affected despite requests that they do so.Respondent then served a demand for arbitration. Supreme Court granted petitioner's applicationto stay arbitration, although it permitted respondent to file a new grievance which named allaffected parties, and respondent appeals.
We reverse. Initially, we reject petitioner's argument that the appeal has been rendered [*2]moot by respondent's failure to accept Supreme Court's invitationto file a new, more specific grievance. The original grievance remains unresolved and the issueon this appeal is whether it is subject to arbitration. If it is, arbitration can still occur. Given that"the rights and interests of the parties remain undetermined pending the outcome of this appeal,"the appeal is not moot (Kahn vLevy, 52 AD3d 928, 929 [2008]; see Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17,135, 257 & 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., AFL-CIO, 72 NY2d 307,311 [1988], cert denied 488 US 966 [1988]).
Addressing the merits, there is no claim that any "statutory, constitutional or public policyprohibition against arbitration of the grievance" exists (Matter of City of Johnstown[Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273, 278 [2002]). Thus, the inquiry turns towhether the CBA referred the issue to arbitration (see id.; Matter of Union-Endicott Cent. SchoolDist. [Endicott Teachers' Assn.], 59 AD3d 799, 800 [2009]). The CBA contained abroad arbitration clause that permitted respondent to submit any grievance involving "a questionconcerning the interpretation or meaning of the Agreement" to arbitration (see Matter of City of Ithaca [Ithaca PaidFire Fighters Assn., IAFF, Local 737], 29 AD3d 1129, 1131 [2006]; Matter of SouthCountry Cent. School Dist. v Bellport Teachers Assn., 184 AD2d 771, 772 [1992]).Accordingly, if "there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute andthe general subject matter of the CBA," the dispute should be deemed arbitrable (Matter ofBoard of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 NY2d 132,143 [1999]; see Matter of City ofElmira [Elmira Professional Firefighters' Assn., AFL-CIO, I.A.F.F.-Local 709], 34 AD3d1075, 1076 [2006]). As the present dispute involves the interpretation of the eveningmeeting provision of the CBA, such a reasonable relationship exists. Whether respondentcomplied with the requirements of the grievance process and whether the CBA required that allaffected parties be named in the grievance are issues of procedural arbitrability for the arbitratorto resolve (see Matter of Enlarged City School Dist. of Troy [Troy Teachers Assn.], 69NY2d 905, 907 [1987]; Matter ofHartsdale Fire Dist. v Greenburgh Uniform Firefighters Assn., Inc., Local 1586, IAFF,AFL-CIO, 55 AD3d 731, 732 [2008]).
Cardona, P.J., Lahtinen, Kane and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed,on the law, with costs, and application denied.