## Facts

- Buffalo Professional Firefighters Association, Inc., Local 282, IAFF (the union) represented firefighters employed by the City of Buffalo under Mayor Anthony Masiello.
- The union and the City negotiated a successor collective-bargaining agreement but reached an impasse over wages and salaries.
- Mediation failed, and the union sought compulsory public-interest arbitration under New York Civil Service Law § 209(4).
- At arbitration hearings, the union, the City, and the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (BFSA) presented evidence and argument concerning compensation and the City’s finances.
- The union requested wage increases of 3.4% in each of two years and a $5,000 retroactive increase to base wages or salaries.
- The City and the BFSA sought no wage or salary increases, citing severe fiscal conditions and oversight measures associated with the BFSA.
- A panel majority issued an award granting a 2.1% wage increase for the first year and a 3.4% wage increase for the second year, and denying any retroactive wage or salary increase.
- In its written decision, the majority stated it considered the evidence under the four statutory factors in Civil Service Law § 209(4) and listed those factors.
- The majority identified three parts of its analysis as especially important: (1) parity with police, (2) the City’s ability to pay, and (3) the nature of firefighters’ duties.
- The majority described evidence that City expenditures exceeded revenues, creating a severe fiscal condition and leading to BFSA involvement, and treated the City’s finances as central to whether it should depart from a longstanding practice of parity with police compensation.
- The majority recognized the professionalism and dangers of firefighters’ work and the public’s reliance on firefighters, but concluded strict parity was not required because the police union had obtained its increases through substantial concessions not offered by the firefighters’ union.
- The union filed a CPLR Article 75 petition to vacate the award, arguing the panel majority failed to provide a sufficiently specific basis for the particular wage percentages and thus exceeded its authority.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the award, and the City and Masiello appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the arbitration panel’s written award satisfied Civil Service Law § 209(4) by stating a sufficiently specific basis showing consideration of the statutory factors.
2. Whether the trial court erred under CPLR Article 75 by vacating the award on the ground that the panel exceeded its authority due to an allegedly inadequate explanation.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed the judgment vacating the award.
- The court reinstated (confirmed) the arbitration award granting 2.1% and 3.4% wage increases with no retroactive increase.
- The court held the panel majority’s written decision adequately reflected consideration of the Civil Service Law § 209(4) factors and provided a sufficient basis for the result.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of compulsory public-interest arbitration awards under CPLR Article 75 is limited; courts do not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for the arbitrators’ assessment of economic and labor factors.
- Civil Service Law § 209(4) requires a public-interest arbitration panel to consider enumerated factors and to issue a written determination stating the basis for the award.
- An arbitration panel may list the statutory factors, identify which factors mattered most in the dispute, and explain its reasoning in narrative form; it need not provide a numeric formula tying each evidentiary point to the exact percentage increases awarded.
- Longstanding parity between firefighters and police may be considered, but it is not controlling where the record supports a reasoned departure, including differences in concessions and the public employer’s financial condition.
- Evidence of a municipality’s fiscal condition and ability to pay may justify an award that grants some increases while declining full parity or retroactive adjustments.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Department reversed the order vacating the firefighters’ wage award and reinstated the panel majority’s determination, concluding that the written decision—reciting the Civil Service Law § 209(4) factors and explaining the roles of parity, ability to pay, and the nature of firefighters’ work—stated a sufficiently specific basis and remained within the narrow limits of Article 75 review.


In re Buffalo Professional Firefighters Association, Inc., Local 282, IAFF (Masiello), 50 A.D.3d 106, 850 N.Y.S.2d 744 (2008)