BD. OF EDUC., LAKELAND CENT. SCH. DIST. OF SHRUB OAK v. Barni
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of America (N.Y. 2010)
- Sheriff Officers Ass'n v. Nassau County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Sheriff Officers Ass'n v. Nassau County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Merrick Union Free School District v. Merrick Faculty Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re the Arbitration between Massena Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re the Arbitration between City of Ithaca & Civil Service Employees Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- In re the Arbitration between Mohawk Valley Community College & Mohawk Valley Community College Professional Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- In re the Arbitration between Travis & Masiello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- United Federation of Teachers, Local 2 v. Board of Education (N.Y. 2003)
- In re the Arbitration between City of Auburn & Law Enforcement Officers Union, Council 82 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Board of Education, Lakeland Central School District of Shrub Oak, Respondent,
v.
Joseph Barni, as President of the Lakeland Federation of Teachers, Local 1760, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Nancy E. Hoffman, James R. Sander and Jeffrey S. Karp for appellant.
Murray Steyer for respondent.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
*895MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs.
The provisions (art XVII, par b) of the collective bargaining agreement set forth certain procedures which the board agreed to follow when a vacancy exists in the district. After having notified the federation of a vacancy, each applicant on the staff was to receive an interview with the vacancy to be filled on the basis of the "experience, competency and qualifications of the applicant * * * and other relevant factors." The grievant alleges that the board failed to follow these procedures.
Section 1 of article XXVII of the agreement defines a grievance as "a complaint by any teacher or group of teachers in the bargaining unit concerning an alleged misinterpretation or misapplication of an express provision of this Agreement." Any unresolved grievance may be submitted to final and binding arbitration by the federation. The grievance filed is clearly a dispute for resolution by the arbitrator and it is not for the courts to interpret the substantive conditions of the contract or to determine the merits of the dispute (Board of Educ. v Barni, 49 N.Y.2d 311; Matter of Wyandanch Union Free School Dist. v Wyandanch Teachers Assn., 48 N.Y.2d 669).
Nor should arbitration be stayed merely because the requested remedy, if granted, runs the risk of resulting in an *896 impermissible assumption of the board's supervisory responsibility, or, as is contended in this case, because it is feared that the arbitrator's judgment would be improperly substituted for the subjective determination of an applicant's qualification which is vested in the discretion of the superintendent (Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 411).
Order reversed, with costs, the demand for arbitration reinstated and the application for a stay of arbitration denied in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.