Opinion
October 24, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff settled various grievances against his employer by way of a stipulation dated July 30, 1987, in which he released the employer and its agents from liability for former alleged wrongs, and agreed in the future to seek redress for any grievances through the procedures and administrative channels prescribed by his union contract. Thereafter, the plaintiff pursued another set of similar grievances to arbitration, which resulted in an award on August 30, 1988.
To the extent that the grievances set forth in the instant complaint were already settled by the stipulation of 1987 and pursuant to an arbitration award in 1988, the instant action was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) (see, CPLR 7511; Home Ins. Co. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 134 A.D.2d 570, 571; Matter of Biller [David], 37 A.D.2d 954). The remainder of the complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), because the residual grievances are governed by the plaintiff's collective bargaining agreement (see, Matter of Board of Educ. v Ambach, 70 N.Y.2d 501, 508, cert denied sub nom. Margolin v. Board of Educ., 485 U.S. 1034; Berlyn v. Board of Educ., 55 N.Y.2d 912; Menkes v. City of New York, 91 A.D.2d 654, lv. dismissed 59 N.Y.2d 602, cert denied 464 U.S. 858). Although the plaintiff complains that his union has failed to carry his 50 subsequent grievances past Step 2 of the grievance procedures mandated by his collective bargaining agreement, this does not constitute the arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith behavior necessary to constitute a breach by the union of its duty of fair representation of him (see, Matter of Civil Serv. Bar Assn. v City of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 188, 196). Indeed, the union's "decision to conclude the grievance process short of the final step allowed by contract or law is binding on the employee and precludes resort to additional remedies" (Matter of Board of Educ. v. Ambach, supra, at 511; see also, Matter of Civil Serv. Bar Assn. v. City of New York, supra; Abrams v. Board of Educ., 91 A.D.2d 618).
We note that this case and related matters undertaken by the plaintiff's attorneys border on the frivolous, and that they would be well advised to refrain from such irresponsible litigation in the future. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.