Citation Numbers： 84 A.D.2d 578, 443 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15673
Filed Date： 10/26/1981
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 11/1/2024
In a proceeding to stay arbitration, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Quinn, J.), dated October 2, 1980, which denied the application. Judgment affirmed with $50 costs and disbursements. The bargaining agreement between the parties provides that “[t]he duties and responsibilities of the teacher in charge will be developed by mutual agreement and made a part of the bylaws of the School District.” The agreement further provides that a grievance is an alleged violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of any provision of the contract. The grievances in issue arise from a decision of the petitioner to institute teachers in charge in a school, and to alter their job duties. The petitioner is charged by statute with the nondelegable duty to establish academic departments and to superintend and control the duties of teachers (see Education Law, § 1709, subds 13,16,33). It is at least a matter of doubt whether an agreement by the petitioner to share that responsibility with the respondent is enforceable under the strictures of public policy. Though a school board may agree to present to an advisory committee appointed under a bargaining contract a matter under the school board’s exclusive control by statute (see, e.g., Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port