Opinion
November 12, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (McDermott, J.).
On this appeal, petitioner claims that the arbitrator exceeded her authority in determining that Brenda Shelton's duties as an associate professor were greater than her half-time employment status in violation of the salary and benefit terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner notes that the agreement does not permit an arbitrator to "grant a continuing or permanent appointment" or to "substitute his/her judgment" where "provisions of this Agreement or the procedural steps of the Policies [of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York] call for the exercise of [such] judgment". The Policies of the Board of Trustees state that an employee's "professional obligation * * * shall include teaching, research, University service and other duties". Basically, petitioner claims that the arbitrator was substituting her judgment for that of college officials and that her decision also contravened Shelton's "continuing employment" status.
We disagree. An arbitration award will not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power (see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 N.Y.2d 907). Here, we cannot say that the arbitrator did not act within the scope of her authority. The agreement defines a grievance as a "dispute concerning the interpretation, application or claimed violation of a specific term or provision" of the agreement. The arbitrator limited herself to the issues before her concerning the violation of certain specific clauses of the agreement and, in so doing, exercised her authority within the agreement's terms (see, Matter of State of New York [State Univ. of N.Y. — Stony Brook] [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 179 A.D.2d 941; cf., Matter of State of New York [State Univ. of N.Y., Coll. at Buffalo] [United Univ. Professions], 150 A.D.2d 877, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 612). Her remedy of differential back pay and benefit adjustments was also within the purview and content of the agreement (see, supra; cf., Matter of State of New York [State Univ. of N.Y., Coll. at Buffalo] [United Univ. Professions], supra). As a final matter, the award had a rational basis and did not violate any strong public policy (see, Matter of Ploen v Monticello Cent. School Dist., 160 A.D.2d 879).
Mikoll, J.P., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.