## Facts

- Tony Aiken was employed by Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA or the Authority) as a bus operator and was represented by Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 (the Union).
- A bus dispatcher filed an internal complaint with the Authority’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), alleging that Aiken repeatedly sexually harassed her.
- The EEO opened an investigation into the dispatcher’s allegations.
- Shortly after the complaint and investigation began, the Union requested that Aiken be placed on approved union-paid release time (paid time away from regular duties to perform union work), and the Authority approved the request.
- The EEO concluded it was “reasonably likely” that Aiken had engaged in sexual harassment and recommended corrective action.
- The Authority filed disciplinary charges under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and scheduled a disciplinary hearing.
- Acting on Union advice that the Authority lacked power to proceed with discipline while Aiken was on union-paid release time, Aiken did not appear for the hearing.
- After the hearing, the Authority terminated Aiken’s employment.
- The dispute proceeded to arbitration, where the Union pursued a contract-interpretation grievance arguing that, under the CBA, the Authority could not impose a disciplinary penalty on an employee while the employee was on approved union-paid release time.
- The arbitrator agreed with the Union, concluded that the Authority violated the CBA by imposing discipline while Aiken was on release time, and directed Aiken’s reinstatement.
- Earl Phillips, as Union president, commenced a CPLR article 75 proceeding in Supreme Court to confirm the arbitration award; the Authority cross-moved to vacate the award as contrary to public policy because it impaired the Authority’s ability to address workplace sexual harassment.
- Supreme Court confirmed the award and denied the Authority’s cross-motion; the Authority appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.

## Issues

1. Whether an arbitration award interpreting the CBA to bar discipline of an employee on approved union-paid release time must be vacated as contrary to public policy when the employee was found to have engaged in workplace sexual harassment.
2. Whether enforcing the award would improperly prevent the Authority from carrying out its legal responsibility to prevent and remedy sexual harassment in the workplace.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court’s order.
- The court denied the petition to confirm the arbitration award.
- The court granted the Authority’s cross-motion to vacate the award.
- The court held that the award, as written and applied, violated strong public policy against sexual harassment by treating union-paid release time as a shield from discipline and by interfering with the employer’s duty to maintain a harassment-free workplace.

## Legal Principles

- Courts give substantial deference to labor-arbitration awards and generally do not review the merits of the arbitrator’s contract interpretation.
- Under CPLR article 75, an arbitration award may be vacated where enforcement would violate strong, well-defined public policy grounded in constitutional, statutory, or common-law sources.
- Public policy against workplace sexual harassment is strong and well defined under federal, state, and local anti-discrimination law.
- An employer has a nondelegable duty to take reasonable steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment; a contractual arrangement cannot be enforced in a way that disables the employer from imposing discipline for substantiated harassment.
- Even if an arbitrator’s reading of a CBA is otherwise within the arbitrator’s authority, a court may refuse enforcement when the award’s effect is to block legally required workplace protections.
- An interpretation of union-paid release time that prevents an employer from disciplining an employee for sexual harassment conflicts with public policy and is unenforceable.

## Conclusion

The First Department vacated an arbitration award reinstating a bus operator terminated for sexual harassment because the arbitrator’s interpretation of the CBA treated union-paid release time as a bar to discipline, a result the court held could not be enforced given the strong public policy requiring employers to prevent and remedy sexual harassment in the workplace.


Phillips v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 15 N.Y.S. 3d 331, 132 A.D. 3d 149 (2015)