Opinion
Argued March 24, 1981
Decided April 9, 1981
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, FRANK J. PINO, J.
Howard N. Meyer for appellant.
Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (Trudi Mara Schleifer and Francis F. Caputo of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs.
At the outset we note that sections 2585 and 2588 of the Education Law which contain provisions setting forth substantive rules regarding layoffs and recall, do not manifest such a strong public policy that disputes as to those matters are precluded from submission to arbitration (cf. Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 411, 419 [BREITEL, Ch. J., concurring]). Additionally, the dispute which the grievant sought to have submitted to arbitration involved his right to be rehired on the basis of his seniority and we find no merit in the board's contention that this matter was intended to be excluded from the scope of arbitrable grievances under the collective bargaining agreement merely because statutory provisions address basic rules regarding rehiring practices (Education Law, § 2585, 2588). Although the agreement states that a grievance does not include matters for which "a method for review is prescribed by law", it is clear that the statutes cited did not mandate a particular method of review and do not preclude submission to arbitration of issues regarding specific rehiring practices within the broad statutory rules (Matter of South Colonie Cent. School Dist. [ South Colonie Teachers Assn.], 46 N.Y.2d 521).
It would seem apparent that questions arising with respect to "recall" which in turn depend upon seniority rating lists prepared by the chancellor, would be arbitrable within the broad concept of the agreement of the parties, which defines a grievance as follows: "A `grievance' shall mean a complaint by an employee in the bargaining unit (1) that there has been as to him a violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of any of the provisions of this agreement or (2) that he has been treated unfairly or inequitably by reason of any act or condition which is contrary to established policy or practice governing or affecting employees".
Although we noted in Matter of Acting Supt. of Schools of Liverpool Cent. School Dist. (United Liverpool Faculty Assn.) ( 42 N.Y.2d 509, 512) that the choice of the arbitration forum should be "express" and "unequivocal" we did not mean to suggest that hairsplitting analysis should be used to discourage or delay demands for arbitration in public sector contracts (see, e.g., Binghamton Civ. Serv. Forum v City of Binghamton, 44 N.Y.2d 23; Board of Educ. v New Paltz United Teachers, 44 N.Y.2d 890; Matter of Port Jefferson Sta. Teachers Assn. v Brookhaven Comsewogue Union Free School Dist., 45 N.Y.2d 898; Matter of Board of Educ. v United Federation of Teachers, 46 N.Y.2d 1018; Matter of Board of Educ. v Roosevelt Teachers Assn., 47 N.Y.2d 748; Matter of Wyandanch Union Free School Dist. v Wyandanch Teachers Assn., 48 N.Y.2d 669; Board of Educ. v Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, 48 N.Y.2d 812; Matter of Board of Educ. [ Hess], 49 N.Y.2d 145; Board of Educ. v Barni, 49 N.Y.2d 311).
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Kings County, reinstated in a memorandum.