Matter of Board of Educ. of the Mineola Union Free School Dist. v Mineola Teachers Assn.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of Board of Educ. of the Mineola Union Free School Dist. v Mineola Teachers Assn. 2011 NY Slip Op 32685(U) October 7, 2011 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 7359/11 Judge: Michele M. Woodard Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. - ---------------------- ---------------- ------------- --------- -------- ---- [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU In the Matter of the Application of the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE MINEOLA UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT MICHELE M. WOODARD TRIAL/IAS Par Index No. : 7359/11 Motion Seq. Nos. : 01 & 02 Petitioner For an Order and Judgment pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR staying arbitration of a certain controversy, DECISION AND ORDER -against-- MINEO LA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Respondent. ----J( Papers Read on this Motion: Petitioner s Order to Show Cause Respondent's Notice of Cross- Motion Respondent's Memorandum in Opposition Petitioner s Memorandum of Law Respondent' s Reply Memorandum Respondent' s Verified Answer Petitioner s Verified Reply J(J( J(J( J(J( J(J( J(J( In motion sequence number one , the petitioner Board of Education of the Mineola Union Free School District (School District) moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 7503(b) to permanently stay arbitration in the matter. In motion sequence number two , respondent Mineola Teachers Association (MT A) moves to compel arbitration. BACKGROUND In this proceeding, petitioner School District seeks to stay arbitration demanded by respondent MT A on or about April 28 , 2011 in connection with a grievance arising from the School District's denial of the right of a union member to utilze paid leave for puroses of religious observance in violation of Article XXV 25. 01 and 25. 02 of the paries ' collective bargaining agreement covering [* 2] the period July 1 2007 to June 30 , 2011 which governs the terms and conditions of employment of union members. The religious observance clause (Aricle XXV , ~~ 25. 01 and 25. 02 collectively) provides , in pertinent par , that: Teachers wil be entitled to full salar for nonattendance in the amounts for , and resulting from causes ~ 25. listed below. ~ 25. 01(d) Absence for not more than five single days in any school year for observance of religious holidays wil be allowed. Religious holidays as herein used will be those established by the Commissioner of Education as days for religious observance on which pupils may be eJ(cused upon the written request of the parent or guardian. ~~ 25. 02(a) and 25. 02(b) which govern personal ilness days , ilness days anually and allow provide unit members with 15 personal unit members to accumulate any unused days to a maJimUf of two hundred days. Although the Commissioner of Education no longer establishes , by rule or regulation , the paricular days on which pupils may be eJ(cused from attendance for religious observance at the request of a parent, the language of the religious observance clause has not been amended. Curently 8 NYCRR 109.2(a) of the Commissioner s Regulations , provides that: (aJbsence of a pupil from school during school hours for religious observance and education. . . will be eJ(cused upon the request in writing signed by the parent or guardian of the pupil." Notwithstanding this change , the School District continued to permit union members who requested time off for religious observance to utilize the contractually provided five days of paid religious observance leave until the practice was terminated by the School District upon advice of counsel in or [* 3] about October 2010. By letter dated October 20 2010 , counsel for the School District advised the MT A that the religious observance clause contained in the collective bargaining is violative of the Establishment Clause in that it provides a monetar benefit (paid leave) to those employees who claim to be religiously observant while failing to provide a similar benefit to those who are not. Fu:her , the School District opined that providing paid leave to employees without charging any of their accrued leave acts to discriminate against those individuals who are not religiously observant. By email dated October 25 , 2010 , the School District notified all employees that " it is impermissible for the District to grant any leave for religious observance pursuant to the unlawfl contract provisions " contained within the collective bargaining agreement. The School District noted however , that it recognized its obligation to provide reasonable accommodation for religious observance on an individual basis. In response , on November 17 , 2010 , the president of the MT A fied the School District' s position vis-a-vis religious observance leave set fort a grievance claiming that in the e-mail was violative of Aricle XXV of the collective bargainirlg; agreement. The grievance was denied by the Superintendent of the School District by memorandum dated November 17 , 2010 based on the grounds that the religious observance clause is unlawfl. After a hearing conducted by the School District on Januar 20 2011 , at which the decision was reviewed , the MTA was advised by the President ofthe Board of Education , in a letter dated March 29 2011 , that the grievance was denied. On April 28 2011 , the MTA served a Demand for Arbitration based on the School District's alleged violation of the leave provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. The School District's instant application seeks to permanently stay arbitration of its refusal to allow MT A members to have days off for religious observance without charge to leave credits predicated on the grounds that arbitration is precluded on public policy grounds where , as here , the [* 4] arbitration award would violate well defined constitutional , statutory or common law. Mineola Union Free School District v Mineola Teachers Ass ' Matter of 37 AD3d 605 , 606 (2d Dept 2007). In this regard , the School District contends that the contract language of Article XXV creates the impermissible impression that the School District favors certain religions over others in violation of the Establishment Clause pursuant to which neither the state nor federal governent may influence a person s religious affliations nor punish an individual for his or her religious beliefs or non-beliefs. Eberson v Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp. 330 U.S. 1 8 (1947). Moreover , the School District argues that inasmuch as paid religious observance leave is violative of the EstablishmentClause ofthe United States Constitution it is a prohibited subject of collective bargaining. The provision , at issue in this matter , both as it eJ(ists and is practiced , is not subject to arbitration. ANAL Y8IS As a general matter , any subject with respect to the terms and conditions of employment in controverSy between a board of education and its teachers may be a subject of a collective bargaining agreement under Civil Service Law ~ 204 (the Taylor Law) and of consequent arbitration under a Matter of Union Free Dist. broad arbitration clause. Ass ' #15 Town of Hempstead v Lawrence Teachers 33 AD3d 808 (2d Dept 2006). As a general rule , public policy favors arbitral resolution of public sector labor disputes. City of Long Beach v Civil Service Employees Ass ' , Inc. 8 NY3d 465 470 (2007). Thus , a dispute between a school district and a teacher s union relative to a collective 204. Recognition and certification of employee organization Public employers are hereby empowered to recognize employee organizations for the purose of negotiating collectively in the determination of, and 1. administration of grievances arising under , the terms and conditions of employment of their public employees as provided in this aricle , and to negotiate and enter into written agreements with such employee organizations in determining such terms and conditions of employment. [* 5] bargaining agreement can be subject to arbitration. The court' s role in reviewing an application to stay arbitration is a limited one. Workers ' Ass n), Matter of Union-Endicott Cent. School Dist. (Union Endicott Maintenance 85 AD3d 1432 , 1433 (3rd Dept 2011). The threshold determination with respect whether a dispute is arbitratable involves a two-par test enunciated by the Cour of Appeals in to Matter of Acting Supt. of Schools of Liverpool Cent. School Dist. (United Liverpool Faculty Ass ' n) 42 NY2d 509 513 (1977). The first inquiry is whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition Matter of City of Johnstown (Johnstown Police Benevolent against arbitration of the grievance. Ass ' n), 99 NY2d 273 , 278 (2002). This is a very narow eJ(ception to arbitrability, however , which applies only where strong and well defined policy considerations , embodied in constitutional statutory or common law , prohibit a paricular arbitrator. matter from being decided or certain relief being granted by an Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Offcers Ass ' 95 NY2d 273 , 286 (2000). If no prohibition eJ(ists in this regard , the second inquiry is whether the paries , in fact , agreed to arbitrate the paricular dispute by eJ(amining their collective bargaining agreement. If there is a prohibition, the inquiry ends and an arbitrator canot act. The cour wil not consider whether the claim sought to be arbitrated is tenable or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute. (Watertown Educ. Ass ' n), Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. 93 NY2d 132 , 142 (1999). A dispute is not arbitratable if the court can conclude , without engaging in eJ(tended fact finding or legal analysis , that a law prohibits in an absolute sense the pfu-ticular matter to be decided by arbitration. Mineola Union Free School Dist. v Mineola Teachers ' Ass ' arbitrable when the subject matter ofthe dispute , supra. A dispute is not violates a statute , decisional law or public policy. [* 6] Matter of Patrolmen s Benevolent Assn. of City of New York v New York State Public Employment Relations Bd. 6 NY3d 563 573 (2006). As stated by the Cour of Appeals in Matter of Grifn v Coughlin 88 NY2d 674 , 686 (1996), the Establishment Clause is violated by any governental action , whether subtle, or overt , which coerces , pressures or infuences a person s choices regarding religious belief or practice. Notwithstanding the practice adopted by the School District of permitting allMT A members who request paid leave , premised on a sincerely held religious belief, to utilize the contractually provided five days of paid religious observance leave , the provision contained within the collective bargaining agreement herein provides that the Commissioner of Education designates the specific religious holidays for which paid leave might be permitted. As stated by the cour in Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Ass ' 2000), appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 790 (2000), Matter of Port 268 AD2d 523 524 (2d Dept 95 NY2d 761 (2000), the religious observance Iv den. clause similar to that contained in the collective bargaining agreement atissue herein , as well as the practice developed thereunder , rewards those members of the MTA who claim to be religiously observant with more paid days off than those members who are not observant. As such , it is violative of the Establishment Clause ofthe First Amendment of the United States Constitution which requires strict governental neutrality with respect to religion. To withstand an Establishment Clause attack , a state action must have a secular legislative purose , a primar effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion and must not foster an eJ(cessive governent entanglement with religion. While the cour in Lemon v Kurtzman 403 U. S. 602 612- 613 (1971). Matter of Maine-Endwell Teachers ' Ass n v Board of Educ. of Maine- EmJwell Cent. School Dist. 3 AD3d 685 686 (3 Dept. 2004) (citations omitted) declined to follow [* 7] Port Washington Port in so doing it distinguished the religious observance clause at issue in from that in its own case by pointing out that the Port Washington religious observance Washington clause " went beyond reasonable accommodation and instead rose to a level of ' (g)ovemment pressure to paricipate in a religious activity (, ) . . . an obvious indication that the governent (was) endorsing or promoting religion. (Brown Given that a trial court must follow appellate division precedent in its own deparment Vilage of Albion 128 Misc2d 586 , 588 (N. Y.Sup. May 29 1985)), the arbitration sought herein must be stayed and MTA' s motion to compel arbitration is , therefore MTA' s reliance on denied. Maine-Endwell Teachers Ass ' is unavailing under the circumstances extat. As such , it is hereby ORDERED , thatthe District's application is granted in its entirety and the Arbitration matter is permanently STAYED. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Cour. DATED: October 7 , 2011 Mineola , N. Y. 11501 ENTER: CY HON. MICHELE M. WOODARD E\TFs=I;D F:\Board of Ed Mineola UFSD v Mineola Teachers Assn CAwpd OCT t 7 2011 NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK' S OFFICE
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.
