## Facts

- Chautauqua County, a public employer, determined in December 2003 that layoffs were necessary for economic reasons.
- The County and CSEA were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) containing layoff and displacement (bumping) provisions based on departmental seniority and cross-department displacement once in-department options were exhausted.
- New York Civil Service Law § 80 sets statutory rules for competitive-class reductions in force, generally requiring suspensions or demotions in inverse order of original permanent appointment within the relevant governmental jurisdiction among employees in the same or similar positions.
- CSEA filed grievances alleging the County failed to follow the CBA’s layoff and displacement procedures and demanded arbitration under a broad arbitration clause.
- The County petitioned to stay arbitration, arguing the CBA’s layoff scheme conflicted with § 80 and that the grievances were therefore nonarbitrable as a matter of public policy.

## Issues

1. Whether grievances challenging layoffs and displacement under the CBA are arbitrable when the employer asserts a potential conflict between the CBA provisions and Civil Service Law § 80.
2. Whether a court may stay arbitration based on a theoretical statutory conflict, or must allow arbitration and address any statutory violation at the award-enforcement stage.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the grievances were arbitrable and allowed arbitration to proceed.
- The Court rejected a categorical rule that the presence of § 80 automatically makes CBA layoff/displacement disputes nonarbitrable.
- The Court reasoned that any conflict between the CBA and § 80 was, at this stage, theoretical and dependent on how the CBA would apply to particular employees.
- The Court emphasized that a broad arbitration clause creates a presumption of arbitrability absent clear exclusionary language, and the CBA contained no clear exclusion for layoff disputes.
- The Court confirmed that courts may later vacate an arbitral award that requires conduct violating § 80, preserving statutory supremacy without preempting arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- Public-sector arbitrability in New York follows a two-step inquiry: (1) whether statute or public policy prohibits arbitration of the subject matter, and (2) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute.
- Statutory commands, including Civil Service Law § 80, are mandatory and cannot be waived or overridden by contract; any remedy ordered must conform to the statute.
- The fact that a statute and a CBA address the same topic does not by itself bar arbitration of disputes arising under the CBA.
- With a broad CBA arbitration clause and no explicit exclusion, courts presume disputes are arbitrable and should avoid resolving merits questions under the label of public-policy review.
- Potential statutory conflict is addressed by judicial review of the arbitration award, not by a pre-arbitration stay, unless arbitration of the subject is expressly forbidden.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals required arbitration of the union’s layoff and displacement grievances because the CBA broadly mandated arbitration and any claimed inconsistency with Civil Service Law § 80 was not a pre-arbitration bar; compliance with § 80 would be enforced through post-award judicial review if necessary.


Cnty. of Chautauqua v. Civ. Serv. Emps. Ass’n, Loc. 1000, AFSCME, 8 N.Y.3d 513 (N.Y. 2007)