Opinion
11-17-2017
In the Matter of Arbitration Between MONROE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner–Respondent–Respondent, and Monroe County and Monroe County Sheriff, Respondents–Petitioners–Appellants.
Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford (Karlee S. Bolanos of Counsel), for Respondents–Petitioners–Appellants. Trevett Cristo P.C., Rochester (Daniel P. Debolt of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent–Respondent.
Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford (Karlee S. Bolanos of Counsel), for Respondents–Petitioners–Appellants.
Trevett Cristo P.C., Rochester (Daniel P. Debolt of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent–Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, respondents-petitioners (respondents) appeal from an order that granted the petition to confirm the award rendered in a labor arbitration, and denied respondents' cross petition to vacate that award. The award directed respondents to provide qualified retirees and future retirees from the Monroe County Sheriff's Office with the same health insurance coverage (i.e., coverage for the dependent child of a retiree until the child reaches the age of 26 years) as they provided to active employees pursuant to the federal Affordable Care Act (see 42 U.S.C. § 300gg–14 [a] ) and the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the parties.
We reject respondents' contention that the arbitrator exceeded his power in fashioning the award. It is well settled that an arbitrator exceeds his or her power within the meaning of CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) where, inter alia, the arbitrator's award " ‘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 Sch. Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 N.Y.3d 72, 79, 769 N.Y.S.2d 451, 801 N.E.2d 827 [2003] ). "To exclude a substantive issue from arbitration ... generally requires specific enumeration in the arbitration clause itself of the subjects intended to be put beyond the arbitrator's reach" (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261 [1984], rearg. denied 62 N.Y.2d 803, 477 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 465 N.E.2d 1269 [1984] ; see Matter of Communication Workers of Am., Local 1170 v. Town of Greece, 85 A.D.3d 1668, 1669, 926 N.Y.S.2d 232 [4th Dept.2011], lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 802, 2011 WL 6350533 [2011] ). Here, contrary to respondents' contention, we conclude that the arbitrator did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on his power.
We also reject respondents' contention that the arbitrator's award is irrational. "An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator ‘offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached’ " ( Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 471, 479, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 [2006], cert. dismissed 540 U.S. 940, 127 S.Ct. 34, 165 L.Ed.2d 1012 [2006]; see Matter of Rochester City Sch. Dist. [Rochester Teachers Assn. NYSUT/AFT–AFL/CIO], 38 A.D.3d 1152, 1153, 832 N.Y.S.2d 699 [4th Dept.2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 813, 848 N.Y.S.2d 24, 878 N.E.2d 608 [2007] ). Here, we conclude that the arbitrator's "interpretation of the [CBA], not being completely irrational, is beyond [our] review power" ( Matter of Lackawanna City Sch. Dist. [Lackawanna Teachers Fedn.], 237 A.D.2d 945, 945, 654 N.Y.S.2d 540 [4th Dept.1997] ; see Rochester City Sch. Dist., 38 A.D.3d at 1153, 832 N.Y.S.2d 699 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.