MONROE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S, MTR. OF ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    84
    CA 13-01106
    PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN MONROE
    COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.,
    PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
    AND                           MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    MONROE COUNTY AND MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF,
    RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
    TREVETT CRISTO SALZER & ANDOLINA, P.C., ROCHESTER (DANIEL P. DEBOLT OF
    COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
    MERIDETH H. SMITH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MALLORIE C. RULISON OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann
    Marie Taddeo, J.), entered December 11, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant
    to CPLR article 75. The order denied the petition and confirmed the
    arbitration award.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: Petitioner, the bargaining representative for
    certain Deputy Sheriffs employed by respondents, commenced this
    proceeding to vacate an arbitration award denying a grievance filed by
    petitioner on behalf of five of its members. Those five Deputy
    Sheriffs were scheduled to work on July 4, 2011 and they each
    requested and were granted the day off without being required to use
    vacation leave or compensatory time. The collective bargaining
    agreement (CBA) then in effect provided that Independence Day was a
    paid holiday and that “[a]ll employees shall be entitled to holiday
    pay.” In addition, the five Deputy Sheriffs qualified, by virtue of
    their employment and military service, for the benefit extended by
    Military Law § 249, which provides in pertinent part that employees so
    qualified “shall, in so far as practicable, be entitled to absent
    [themselves] from [their] duties or service, with pay, on July fourth
    of each year” without “any loss or diminution of vacation or holiday
    privilege.” Respondents ultimately paid the five employees eight
    hours of holiday pay without loss of vacation leave or compensatory
    time. Petitioner thereafter filed a grievance alleging that
    respondents violated the CBA when they failed to pay the Deputy
    Sheriffs for their regular shifts on July 4, 2011, i.e., for an
    additional 7.5 hours. The grievance was denied at each step
    -2-                            84
    CA 13-01106
    contemplated by the CBA, including arbitration. The arbitrator
    concluded, inter alia, that neither the CBA nor Military Law § 249
    required respondents to pay the five Deputy Sheriffs in the manner
    sought by petitioner.
    We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied the petition and
    confirmed the arbitration award. Contrary to petitioner’s
    contentions, the arbitrator did not exceed any limitation of his power
    in denying the grievance (see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v
    Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 100, 14 NY3d 119, 123-124;
    Rochester City Sch. Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 NY2d 578,
    583), nor is his construction of the CBA totally irrational (see
    Rochester City Sch. Dist., 41 NY2d at 583; cf. Matter of Albany County
    Sheriffs Local 775 of N.Y. State Law Enforcement Officers Union, Dist.
    Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO [County of Albany], 27 AD3d 979, 980). In
    addition, there is no basis for vacating the award as violative of
    public policy (see generally Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v
    Transport Workers Union of Am. Local 100, AFL-CIO, 99 NY2d 1, 6-7).
    Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the award does not, on its face,
    violate the public policy embodied in Military Law § 249, and the
    court properly declined to vacate the award on that ground (see Matter
    of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 631; see also Matter of Brady v
    Kelley, 51 AD2d 797, 797-798).
    Entered:   February 7, 2014                     Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 13-01106

Filed Date: 2/7/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016