New York Court of Appeals, 1980

Honeoye Falls-Lima Central School District v. Honeoye Falls-Lima Education Ass'n

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 5, 1980

49 N.Y.2d 732; 402 N.E.2d 1165; 426 N.Y.S.2d 263; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2099; 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2224

Cases that cite this one

31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

United Federation of Teachers, Local 2 v. Board of Education (N.Y. 2003)
County of Chautauqua v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 1000 (N.Y. 2007)
Watertown v. STATE PERB (N.Y. 2000)
Meehan v. Nassau Community College (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
City of New York v. Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Board of Education of Valhalla Union Free School District v. Valhalla Teachers Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Board of Education of Valhalla Union Free School District v. Valhalla Teachers Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re the Arbitration between New York State Office of Children & Family Services & Lanterman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
United Federation of Teachers, Local 2 v. Board of Education of the City School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
City of Watertown v. State of New York Public Employment Relations Board (N.Y. 2000)
City of New York v. Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n (N.Y. 2000)
County of Westchester v. Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re the Arbitration Between Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n (N.Y. 1999)
Meehan v. Nassau Community College (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Meehan v. Nassau Community College (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Meehan v. Nassau Community College (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Lambert v. Board of Education (New York Supreme Court 1997)
In re the Arbitration between Blackburne & Governor's Office of Employee Relations (N.Y. 1996)
Board of Education v. Arlington Teachers Ass'n (N.Y. 1991)
Board of Education v. Yonkers Federation of Teachers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Szumigala v. Hicksville Union Free School District Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Frasier v. Board of Education (N.Y. 1988)
Three Village Teacher's Ass'n v. Three Village Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Board of Education of Yonkers City School District v. Yonkers Federation of Teachers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
In re the Arbitration between Enlarged City School District & Troy Teachers Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)

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 of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division' should be modified, with costs to appellants, to grant a stay of arbitration with respect to section 9 of article VI of the contract, but otherwise to deny the petition.

Whether the curriculum changes initiated by the board constituted "a change in policy or practice” within the meaning of section 1 of article XIX of the contract between the parties is a matter of contractual agreement within the arbitration provision of the contract (art III, § 5.4). Since section 1 of article XIX requires only that proposed changes be submitted for review and mutual agreement to a committee formed in conjunction with the association, but expressly provides that "[f]inal consideration is at the discretion of the Board of Education”, there is no public policy prohibition against submission to arbitration of the questions whether there was a change in policy and a failure to follow the procedure contracted for (Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d 411; Matter of Board of Educ. v United Federation of Teachers, 46 NY2d 1018).

Arbitration with respect to the job security provision of the contract (art VI, § 9) is, however, another matter. While the contract provision requires layoff of those with the least seniority in the school district, subdivision 2 of section 2510 of the Education Law directs that "the services of the teacher having the least seniority in the system within the tenure of the position abolished shall be discontinued” (emphasis added). The apparent purpose of that provision is to maintain teaching proficiency which would otherwise be denigrated if, for example, the abolition of three vocational training positions required the dismissal of three teachers of romance languages, or vice versa, simply because they happened to have been the last three persons employed.

*734We have previously made clear that it is beyond the power of a school board to surrender through collective bargaining a responsibility vested in the board in the interest of maintaining adequate standards in the classrooms as, for example, the granting or withholding of tenure (Matter of Cohoes City-School Dist. v Cohoes Teachers Assn., 40 NY2d 774, 778). A fortiori, an express statutory direction related to maintenance of standards, such as subdivision 2 of section 2510, may not be the subject of arbitration (cf. Matter of Candor Cent. School Dist. [Candor Teachers Assn.], 42 NY2d 266). Matter of Feinerman v Board of Coop. Educational Servs. (48 NY2d 491) is not to the contrary, for the effect upon educational standards in the instant case is greater and more direct than was the exclusion from the educational system of the individual teacher, who had agreed to such exclusion, that was approved in Feinerman.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order modified, with costs to appellants, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.