| Matter of Capital Dist. Transp. Auth. (Planz) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09580 [68 AD3d 1499] |
| December 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Arbitration between Capital DistrictTransportation Authority, Respondent, and Ralph Planz et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Amanda A. Avery, Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, forrespondent.
Kane, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), entered February 13,2009 in Albany County, which granted petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stayarbitration between the parties.
Respondent Ralph Planz worked for petitioner as a bus operator. Planz was a member ofrespondent Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1321, which was a party to a collectivebargaining agreement (hereinafter CBA) with petitioner. When Planz had not returned to workmore than a year after suffering an injury, petitioner terminated his employment under aprovision of the CBA. Contending that a different clause of the provision applied and wouldprevent his termination at that time, Planz filed a grievance. After petitioner denied thegrievance, respondents demanded arbitration of the dispute pursuant to the CBA. Petitionercommenced this proceeding seeking to stay arbitration. Finding that the CBA barred arbitrationwith regard to leaves of absence, Supreme Court granted the petition. On respondents' appeal, wereverse.
Supreme Court erred in granting a stay of arbitration. When determining whether a publicemployment grievance is arbitrable, a court must first determine if the Taylor Law (seeCivil Service Law art 14) authorizes arbitration of the subject matter in dispute, and thendetermine [*2]whether the parties agreed in their CBA toarbitrate disputes in the specific area at issue (see Matter of County of Chautauqua v CivilServ. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300,Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 NY3d 513, 519 [2007]; Matter of Acting Supt. ofSchools of Liverpool Cent. School Dist. [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.], 42 NY2d 509,513 [1977]; Matter of Union-Endicott Cent. School Dist. [Endicott Teachers' Assn.], 59AD3d 799, 800 [2009]). The parties here concede that the Taylor Law permits arbitration of thismatter, leaving us to decide only if their CBA requires them to arbitrate this dispute. If anagreement contains a broad arbitration clause, the court should only decide whether there is areasonable relationship between the disputed subject matter and the general subject matterscovered by the CBA (see Matter of Vestal Cent. School Dist. [Vestal Teachers Assn.], 2AD3d 1190, 1192 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 708 [2004]). "Absent express exclusion ofthe subject of a grievance, matters of interpretation of the agreement are for the arbitrator"(Matter of Legislature of County of Rensselaer [Allen], 44 AD2d 628, 628 [1974];see Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 NY2d 329, 334 [1961]; Matter of Countyof Sullivan [Sullivan County Empls. Assn.], 235 AD2d 748, 749 [1997]).
Pursuant to the broad provisions of the CBA here, grievances are arbitrable. A grievance isdefined to include "any alleged violation of this [CBA] or any dispute with respect to itsmeaning, interpretation or application" (compare Matter of Legislature of County ofRensselaer [Allen], 44 AD2d at 629). Therefore, unless an issue is specifically andunambiguously excluded, it is subject to arbitration (see Matter of Amalgamated Tr. Union,Local Div. 1321 [Capital Dist. Tr. Sys., No. One, Capital Dist. Transp. Dist.], 300 AD2d809, 810 [2002]). Petitioner contends that Planz's grievance is excluded by the following clause:"It is specifically agreed that . . . no arbitrator shall . . . reviewdecisions made pursuant to the Article entitled 'Promotion' or that entitled 'Leaves of Absence.' "Yet the CBA does not include any article with either of those precise titles. This Courtpreviously held that the same quoted provision of a prior CBA between the same parties did notprevent arbitration of an issue related to promotions, as the CBA should be interpreted by thearbitrator (see Matter of Amalgamated Tr. Union, Local Div. 1321 [Capital Dist. Tr. Sys.,No. One, Capital Dist. Transp. Dist.], 300 AD2d at 810-811 [2002]).[FN*] The CBA does contain an article entitled "Leaves of Absence, Holidays and Sick Leave." Thisrenders the exclusion ambiguous; the parties could have intended to prevent arbitration underthis longer-titled section, or they could have mistakenly included the exclusion based on articlesentitled "Leaves of Absence" in similar CBAs applicable to other bargaining units (cf.Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569-570 [2002]). The ambiguity concerning theexclusion from arbitration presents a question of contract interpretation that must be resolved bythe arbitrator (see Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 NY2d at 334; Matter ofLegislature of County of Rensselaer [Allen], 44 AD2d at 628). Hence, the matter shouldproceed to arbitration.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on thelaw, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Footnote *: The prior CBA contained aseparate article stating that all issues regarding interpretation of the CBA were to be resolvedthrough arbitration. Subsequent removal of that article does not alter the result here, becauseduring the same contract negotiations the definition of grievance was expanded to includeinterpretation of the agreement, and grievances are subject to arbitration.