From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Olton v. Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 12, 1980
75 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

May 12, 1980


In an action to recover damages for breach of a collective bargaining agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 8, 1980, which, inter alia, denied its motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his remedies under the agreement. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. The use of the word "right" in the preamble of the section of the collective bargaining agreement entitled grievance procedure should not be construed to mean that the grievance resolution procedure contained therein was an optional method of dispute resolution (cf. Kornit v. Board of Educ., 54 A.D.2d 959, mot for lv to app den 41 N.Y.2d 804). The interpretation employed by Special Term is not in accord with this State's policy toward the resolution of public sector labor disputes (see Civil Service Law, § 200; Matter of Acting Supt. of Schools of Liverpool Cent. School Dist. [United Liverpood Faculty Assn.], 42 N.Y.2d 509, 512). It has been said that: "A contrary rule which would permit an individual employee to completely sidestep available grievance procedures in favor of a lawsuit has little to commend it * * * it would deprive employer and union of the ability to establish a uniform and exclusive method for orderly settlement of employment grievances. If a grievance procedure cannot be made exclusive, it loses much of its desirability as a method of settlement" (Republic Steel v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 653 [applying Federal law]). Plaintiff's failure to exhaust the remedy provided in the collective bargaining agreement mandates the dismissal of the complaint (see Rieder v. State Univ. of N.Y., 47 A.D.2d 865, affd 39 N.Y.2d 845; see, also, Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184). However, under the facts and circumstances of this case, if the plaintiff should file a grievance, he should not be denied relief on a claim of untimeliness (cf. Matter of Whitley v. Board of Educ., 65 A.D.2d 821). Hopkins, J.P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Olton v. Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 12, 1980
75 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

Olton v. Westchester

Case Details

Full title:TERRENCE OLTON, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 12, 1980

Citations

75 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

Berlyn v. Board of Education

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted and…