| Matter of Ontario County (Ontario County Sheriff's Unit7850-01, CSEA, Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03204 [106 AD3d 1463] |
| May 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of the Arbitration between Ontario County etal., Appellants, and Ontario County Sheriff's Unit 7850-01, CSEA, Local 1000,AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Respondent. |
—[*1] Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield, LLP, Rochester (Robert G.McCarthy of counsel), for respondent-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (William F. Kocher,A.J.), entered June 22, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The orderdenied the petition to stay arbitration and granted respondent's cross motion to compelarbitration.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed withoutcosts.
Memorandum: Petitioners commenced this proceeding to stay arbitration (seeCPLR 7503 [b]), and respondent "cross-moved" to compel arbitration with respect togrievances allegedly involving a provision of the parties' collective bargaining agreement(CBA) (see CPLR 7503 [a]). Pursuant to the CBA, disputes over the meaning orapplication of that agreement were required to be submitted first through a grievanceprocess, but could thereafter be submitted to arbitration if the employee was "notsatisfied" with the result obtained through that process. Respondent filed grievances onbehalf of two correction officers whose request for a shift exchange was denied.Respondent asserted that the denial "[v]iolated or [i]nvolved" section 3.11 of the CBA,which provides that "time exchanged between employees shall not be done if it results ina requirement . . . that overtime be paid," and respondent requested that theshift exchanges be allowed. The grievances also involved the application of a ShiftSwapping Policy, which was not contained in the CBA, between respondent andpetitioner Ontario County that outlined the specific procedures an employee must followwhen exchanging a shift with a fellow employee. The Shift Swapping Policy states withrespect to shift swapping on holidays that the person working the holiday receives theholiday pay "[t]o be consistent with contract language." The grievances were denied, andrespondent informed petitioners of its intent to seek arbitration. As noted, petitionersfiled a petition to stay arbitration, and respondent "cross-moved" to compel arbitration.Supreme Court denied the petition and granted the cross motion, and we affirm.[*2]
"A grievance may be submitted to arbitrationonly where the parties agree to arbitrate that kind of dispute, and where it is lawful forthem to do so" (Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police BenevolentAssn.], 99 NY2d 273, 278 [2002]; see Matter of Board of Educ. of WatertownCity School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 NY2d 132, 137-142 [1999]). Here,the parties do not challenge the lawfulness of arbitrating the instant dispute and, instead,petitioners contend that there is no valid agreement to arbitrate the grievances at issueinasmuch as the CBA did not contemplate shift exchanges. We reject that contention.
In determining whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue, "[o]urreview . . . is limited to the language of the grievance and the demand forarbitration, as well as to the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom" (Matter of Niagara Frontier Transp.Auth. v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. Superior Officers Assn., 71 AD3d 1389,1390 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 712 [2010]). "Where, as here, there is a broadarbitration clause and a 'reasonable relationship' between the subject matter of the disputeand the general subject matter of the parties' [CBA], the court 'should rule the matterarbitrable, and the arbitrator will then make a more exacting interpretation of the precisescope of the substantive provisions of the [CBA], and whether the subject matter of thedispute fits within them' " (Matter of Van Scoy [Holder], 265 AD2d 806,807-808 [1999], quoting Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City SchoolDist., 93 NY2d at 143; seeMatter of Town of Cheektowaga [Cheektowaga Police Club, Inc.], 59 AD3d993, 994 [2009]). We therefore conclude that the court properly determined that theparties agreed to arbitrate the instant dispute. In light of our determination, we do notaddress petitioners' remaining contentions. Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Carni,Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.