Opinion
919 CA 19-01569
03-19-2021
In the MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Petitioner-appellant, AND NFTA POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, Respondent-respondent.
DAVID J. STATE, GENERAL COUNSEL, BUFFALO (WAYNE R. GRADL OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. BARTLO, HETTLER, WEISS & TRIPI, KENMORE (PAUL D. WEISS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
DAVID J. STATE, GENERAL COUNSEL, BUFFALO (WAYNE R. GRADL OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
BARTLO, HETTLER, WEISS & TRIPI, KENMORE (PAUL D. WEISS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, WINSLOW, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 seeking to vacate an arbitration award determining that it violated the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with respondent union concerning the manner in which police officers were assigned to work at the transportation facilities operated by petitioner. On appeal from an order denying the petition and confirming the award, petitioner contends that Supreme Court erred in its determination inasmuch as the arbitrator violated public policy, manifestly disregarded the law, and exceeded his authority by improperly relying on evidence of the parties’ past practices in a way that rewrote the terms of the CBA. We affirm.
"An arbitration award may be vacated on three narrow grounds: ‘it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power’ " ( 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 N.Y.3d 72, 79, 769 N.Y.S.2d 451, 801 N.E.2d 827 [2003], quoting Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v. Arlington Teachers Assn. , 78 N.Y.2d 33, 37, 571 N.Y.S.2d 425, 574 N.E.2d 1031 [1991] ). We reject petitioner's contention that the arbitration award violated public policy. Here, petitioner was not prohibited by public policy considerations from agreeing, through collective bargaining, to limit its discretion as to the manner in which it assigned officers to work at its facilities (see generally Matter of Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. [Buffalo Bd. of Educ.] , 90 N.Y.2d 364, 376, 660 N.Y.S.2d 827, 683 N.E.2d 733 [1997] ; Matter of Lucas [City of Buffalo] , 93 A.D.3d 1160, 1163, 941 N.Y.S.2d 365 [4th Dept. 2012] ). Although the arbitrator was not permitted to consider the parties’ past practices in a way that rewrote or negated the terms of the CBA (see Matter of City of Rochester [Rochester Police Locust Club] , 133 A.D.3d 1357, 1358, 19 N.Y.S.3d 836 [4th Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. v. Transport Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, Local 100 , 182 A.D.2d 626, 627, 582 N.Y.S.2d 227 [2d Dept. 1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 755, 588 N.Y.S.2d 823, 602 N.E.2d 231 [1992] ), the arbitrator was entitled to rely on evidence of past practices in order to interpret the terms in the existing agreement (see generally Lucas , 93 A.D.3d at 1163, 941 N.Y.S.2d 365 ; Matter of City of Watertown [Watertown Professional Firefighters’ Assn., Local #191] , 280 A.D.2d 893, 894, 720 N.Y.S.2d 436 [4th Dept. 2001], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 711, 727 N.Y.S.2d 697, 751 N.E.2d 945 [2001] ; Matter of Village of Spring Val. v. Policemen's Benevolent Assn. of Vil. of Spring Val. , 271 A.D.2d 615, 615, 707 N.Y.S.2d 843 [2d Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 760, 714 N.Y.S.2d 710, 737 N.E.2d 952 [2000] ). Thus, contrary to petitioner's contention, the arbitrator's use of past practices evidence does not warrant vacatur of the award on public policy grounds inasmuch as the arbitrator properly used such evidence only in interpreting the disputed provisions of the CBA (see Policemen's Benevolent Assn. of Vil. of Spring Val. , 271 A.D.2d at 615, 707 N.Y.S.2d 843 ; see generally City of Watertown , 280 A.D.2d at 894, 720 N.Y.S.2d 436 ). For the same reason, we conclude that the arbitrator did not "manifestly disregard" the law or exceed his authority through his use of evidence of the parties’ past practices (see City of Watertown , 280 A.D.2d at 894, 720 N.Y.S.2d 436 ; see generally Schiferle v. Capital Fence Co., Inc. , 155 A.D.3d 122, 127, 61 N.Y.S.3d 767 [4th Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Niagara Falls Bridge Commn. Unit, Niagara County Local 832 [Niagara Falls Bridge Commn.] , 32 A.D.3d 1186, 1186, 820 N.Y.S.2d 917 [4th Dept. 2006] ).