Matter of Shenendehowa Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v Civil Serv. Empls. Assoc., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 864

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Shenendehowa Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v Civil Serv. Empls. Assoc., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 864 2010 NY Slip Op 34020(U) November 8, 2010 Supreme Court, Saratoga County Docket Number: 20102883 Judge: Jr., Thomas D. Nolan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] ORIGINAL STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SARATOGA SUPREME COURT In the Matter of the Application of SHENENDEHOWA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, DECISION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT RJI No. 45-1-2010-1246 Index No. 20102883 For an Order and Judgment Vacating the Determination of an Arbitrator Pursuant to CPLR 7511 r "Tl -againstCIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 864 AND CYNTHIA DIDOMENICANTOINIO Respondents. PRESENT: APPEARANCES: HON. THOMAS D. NOLAN, JR. Supreme Court Justice WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP Attorneys for Petitioner One Commerce Plaza Albany, New York 12260 NANCY HOFFMAN Attorney for Respondents CSEA Headquarters Capitol Station, Box 7125 143 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12224-0125 This CPLR Article 75 proceeding arises from an arbitrator's decision setting aside the termination of respondent, Cynthia DiDomenicantonio, a school bus driver for 10 years for petitioner Shenendehowa Central School District (District). Respondent's public employment is rrt a [* 2] governed by a collective bargaining agreement between respondent Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 864 (CSEA) and the District. Respondent is subject to random drug and alcohol screening testing pursuant to the Federal Omnibus Transportation Testing Act of 1991 (49 USC § 31306) and implementing U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (49 C.F.R. parts 40 and 382). On October 21, 2009, her urine tested positive for marijuana. 1 The District placed her on paid administrative leave and on November 10, 2009 terminated her employment. Respondent grieved that determination and filed for arbitration. Following a hearing, the arbitrator determined, although respondent tested positive for marijuana and despite rejecting respondent's claim of improprieties in the testing procedure and discounting respondent's proffered explanations for the positive results, 2 that the penalty of termination was inappropriate, violated the agreement's provision requiring graduated discipline, and directed respondent be reinstated without back pay. The District seeks to vacate the award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) on the principal assertion that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and rewrote rather than interpreted Section 47 (c) (4) of the CBA by applying a "just cause" standard that would call for progressive discipline before termination. Respondents oppose and cross-move for judgment confirming the award. They contend that the arbitrator appropriately interpreted section 47 (c) (4) and did not exceed his authority when he vacated the determination and that the award was not irrational or against pubic policy. 1 The urine sample was split and, at respondent's request, the second sample was analyzed and also tested positive. 2Second hand smoke or her unwitting ingestion of marijuana laced food prepared by her daughter. 2 [* 3] It is "the settled law in New York that it is 'not for the courts to interpret the substantive conditions of the collective bargaining agreement or to determine the merits of the dispute' (citations omitted)". Matter of New York City Transit Auth. v Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100, 14 NY3d 119, 124 (2010). Arbitration awards are "afforded judicial deference and will not be disturbed by the court absent those limited circumstances where the award 'is totally violative of a strong public policy, is totally irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power' (citations omitted)". Matter of Local 2841 New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union AFSCME, AFL-CIO [City of Albany], 53 AD3d 974, 975 (3'd Dept 2008). Moreover, courts may not vacate an award when the collective bargaining agreement is '"reasonably susceptible of the construction given it by the arbitrators' (citations omitted)." Matter of Albany County Sheriff's Local 775 [County of Albany], 27 AD3d 979, 980 (3rd Dept 2006). Article IV Section 4 7 in pertinent part, provides as follows: A. C. Section 47 Employee Rights The parties subscribe to the concept of progressive discipline, except for the most serious offenses. Any employee subject to disciplinary action shall have the right to union representation. An employee may not be removed from service, or otherwise disciplined, except for acts of incompetency, insubordination or misconduct. *** Discipline 1. Except as set forth in paragraph C(4), below, the first formal disciplinary step shall be a written warning from an employee's supervisor describing the specific deficiencies and the steps necessary to return to a satisfactory level of performance. A copy of the warning shall be placed in the employee's personnel folder. 3 ..',•;.',- -' • ,., :~-; ·~·~ ,; ' ,_ ~·-, .: ,-. 'n ..• • ~ . ;. _ .. ,.• ;. . ,.,, .' .' ~',". • "."' ;..; •.•" -- .--•• ' . . .•.. .. ~ [* 4] 2. 3. 4. 5. After the employee receives two (2) written warnings during an eighteen (18) month period, the employee may be suspended, without pay, for up to a maximum of three (3) days. Additional written warnings may result in further disciplinary action, including suspension without pay or discharge. Suspension, without pay or discharge may be invoked with less than two (2) written warnings where the employee's conduct creates a danger to the health, safety or welfare of staff, students and/or the general public or creates a danger to property. A positive result in any required drug or alcohol test is considered such a danger to health, safety or welfare of staff and/or the general pub Iic or creates a danger to property. Suspension without pay in excess of three (3) days of discharge may be imposed only by the decision of the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources. Here, as the District advocates, the construction the arbitrator ascribed to § 47 (C) (4) is simply not reasonable. That section affords the District the power to suspend or terminate an employee whose conduct "creates a danger to the ... safety or welfare of...students" and further denominates that a positive drug test is considered such a "danger". To be sure, the District was not compelled to terminate an employee who failed a drug test but it had the option to do so under§ 47 (C) (4). The arbitrator, by ruling to the contrary, "in effect made a new contract for the parties" as opposed to interpreting it, Matter of Albany County Sheriffs Local 775 [County of Albany] , supra, and thus clearly exceeded his power. The petition is granted and that portion of the award dated May 25, 2010 directing reinstatement of Cynthia DiDomenicantonio as a school bus driver is vacated and the award modified to confirm the District's termination ofrespondent's employment, all without costs. 4 [* 5] The cross petition is dismissed, without costs. This constitutes the decision, order and judgment of the court. The original decision, order and judgment is returned to counsel for the petitioner. All original motion papers are delivered to the Supreme Court Clerk/County Clerk for filing. Counsel for petitioner is not relieved from the applicable provisions of CPLR 2220 relating to filing, entry, and notice of entry of the decision, order and judgment. So Ordered and Adjudged. DATED: November 8, 2010 Ballston Spa, New York Supreme Court Justice ENTERED K ut;1ieic;1 /.. Marchione fiNJuzJd. ~ Saratoga County Clerk 5 ~ ~-·~· ~.., -· •.• • ••1 • ....... ( . ' . :· :.• . • . ' .• • --:.. . • - - -· •' ••• ,•• .•~ • •• ".,t ~ ....... ;.,., ..... ~ ·~ •. ,_ ..... -- ' , ..,, ••-............. ·:--.. .-; -..--_........... ~---· "'~;;,.; .. ·~.. · • ·-' ............., ~...·$·~ ..~- " »-~···-·- . . ·; :,,... ...... ·• ·' . .. ----' .·. ·•·.c.· ,.•. . · "· •••,• .,. ~ _,.,: . .1-, ......... , •. ,.,•• • , ·:'>· · ·•·.·- ,,•,•, ' • ' •::.ot"

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.