Matter of Buffalo Professional Firefighters Assn., Inc. v Masiello

Matter of Buffalo Professional Firefighters Assn., Inc., Local 282, IAFF, AFL-CIO-CLC (Masiello) 2009 NY Slip Op 07324 [13 NY3d 803] October 15, 2009 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, December 30, 2009

[*1] In the Matter of the Arbitration between Buffalo Professional Firefighters Association, Inc., Local 282, IAFF, AFL-CIO-CLC, Respondent, and Anthony Masiello, as Mayor of the City of Buffalo, et al., Appellants.

Argued September 10, 2009; decided October 15, 2009

Matter of Buffalo Professional Firefighters Assn., Inc., Local 282, IAFF, AFL-CIO-CLC (Masiello), 50 AD3d 106, modified.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo (Jeffrey F. Swiatek, Jason E. Markel and Joshua Feinstein of counsel), for appellants.

Creighton, Pearce, Johnsen & Giroux, Buffalo (E. Joseph Giroux, Jr., and Jonathan G. Johnsen of counsel), and Sammarco, Mattacola & Sammarco for respondent.

David P. Quinn, Albany, for State of New York Public Employment Relations Board, amicus curiae.

{**13 NY3d at 804} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The Appellate Division order should be modified, without costs, by vacating the arbitration award in its entirety and, as so modified, affirmed.

Recognizing that stalled collective bargaining negotiations between municipalities and police or firefighters' unions could jeopardize public safety, the Legislature created a system whereby impasses in such negotiations are first submitted to mediation and then, if they remain [*2]unresolved, proceed to compulsory public interest arbitration (see Civil Service Law § 209 [4]). There, an arbitration panel selected by the partiesone member by the city, one by the union and a third by bothis required to make "a just and reasonable determination of the matters in dispute," taking into account certain enumerated factors (id. § 209 [4] [c] [v]). A party may commence a CPLR article 75 proceeding to challenge a compulsory public interest arbitration award (Caso v Coffey, 41 NY2d 153, 156 [1976]); on such a proceeding, the reviewing court examines the award to determine whether it is rational (see id. at 158). Here, the Appellate Division appropriately concluded that the issue of health insurance was not an issue before the arbitration panel, inasmuch as the parties agreed, as part of their memorandum of agreement on health insurance, that the City would withdraw its sole health insurance proposal from the panel's consideration. Thus, the Appellate Division appropriately vacated that part of the award.

However, the Appellate Division erred in vacating only the health insurance portion of the arbitration award. The arbitration panel did not consider the issue of wages in isolation. Indeed, the arbitration panel explained that it was rejecting the City's wage proposal, but that it would generate savings for the City on the health insurance portion of the arbitration award. As the parties agree, the separate portions of the arbitration{**13 NY3d at 805} award were so interdependent, no part thereof could be vacated without affecting the merits of the remainder of the award.[FN*] While the parties debate whether CPLR 7511 (c) is applicable here, we need not reach the issue.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order modified, etc. Footnotes

Footnote *: While this determination appears to award affirmative relief to a nonappellant, the appellant to this Court stated that if this Court agrees with the Appellate Division rationale on the issue of health insurance, a total vacatur of the award is required.