COUNTY OF CHAUTAUQUA v. CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1000 AFSCME AFL CIO 6300 807 6300 (2006)

 Supreme Court erred in granting the petition in part and granting petitioner a stay of arbitration with respect to grievances concerning work force layoffs brought by any employees who are “in the Competitive Classification” under the Civil Service Law. Petitioner is correct that there is a conflict between Civil Service Law § 80(4), which permits layoffs by position, and the subject collective bargaining agreement, which provides that layoffs are to be determined on a departmental basis.   Contrary to petitioner's contention, however, that conflict is merely theoretical and is not an impediment to arbitration until such time as the layoffs of particular employees are reviewed (cf. Matter of City of Plattsburgh [Local 788 & N.Y. Council 66], 108 A.D.2d 1045, 1046, 485 N.Y.S.2d 618).   The fact that a statute and a provision in a collective bargaining agreement both address an issue does not necessarily mean that disputes concerning that issue are precluded from submission to arbitration (see generally Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. v. Glaubman, 53 N.Y.2d 781, 782-783, 439 N.Y.S.2d 907, 422 N.E.2d 567).  “Where, as here, a collective bargaining agreement contains a broad arbitration clause, disputes arising thereunder are presumptively arbitrable absent clear exclusionary language” (Matter of Alden Cent. School Dist. v. Watson, 56 A.D.2d 713, 713-714, 392 N.Y.S.2d 729).   There is no such clear exclusionary language herein.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is denied in its entirety and the cross motion is granted in its entirety.

MEMORANDUM: