The Petitioner, County of Monroe ("County"), submits a Petition seeking an order permanently staying any Arbitration between the parties as to the matter of an arbitration demand of the Monroe County Command Sheriff Unit, filed on or about August 29, 2016 regarding the scope of the health insurance coverage to which County retirees' adult children contend they are entitled.

The Respondent, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 828, Unit 7423 ("CSEA" or 'Union"), submits a cross-motion seeking an order denying Petitioner's motion to [*2]stay arbitration and compelling Petitioner to proceed with the arbitration proceedings initiated by Respondent CSEA against Petitioner pursuant to CPLR §7503, upon the ground that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties.

The terms and conditions of employment for members of this Union are fixed by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") that was negotiated between the County and CSEA. Although the CBA contract expired in 2012 it remains the operative agreement until a successor agreement is entered into by the parties. Under the CBA David Inzana ("Grievant") filed a grievance prior to his retirement regarding coverage under the Blue Point 2 Value plan ("Policy"). The grievance followed the CBA procedures to the final step where the County issued a written decision denying the grievance. The Union then filed a demand for arbitration on August 29, 2016.

The Petitioner asserts that the demanded arbitration should be stayed because the parties did not agree to arbitrate the subject of the Union's arbitration demand. Specifically Petitioner argues that the health insurance coverage of County retirees' adult children under County-provided health plans is outside the scope of the CBA's arbitration provision. The reason presented is that the Federal Affordable Care Act mandated coverage under the Policy for adult children up to 26 for employees, but this Act was not applicable to retiree health insurance coverage. The County concludes that the retirees are still receiving the exact Policy; even though the employees' policy has additional adult children coverage to age 26 required by statute, and the retirees' policy does not.

The Petitioner also argues that the CBA makes no provision for the presentation of a class-action grievance. Instead the County asserts that the CBA requires that grievances identify specific contractual violations and the dates of the occurrences.

The Petitioner claims that there is no arbitral issue because there is no CBA based dispute as to adult children coverage for retirees. The County argues that the arbitration demand of August 29, 2016 must be permanently stayed.

The Respondent asserts that the Court is limited in its review of the dispute and must not rule on the merits of the underlying grievance. Instead the Court may only review the general subject matter of the grievance to determine whether the parties agreed under the CBA to submit to arbitration on this subject. The Union relies on the language in the CBA to support its position that the grievance at issue is arbitrable. The Union also relies on an arbitration decision of an arbitrator which involved a companion bargaining unit that addressed the identical issue.

The Union argues that the County should be compelled to proceed to arbitration concerning the scope of dependent health insurance coverage for retired CSEA bargaining members. Further the Union submits that questions as to whether the arbitration should proceed as a class action is for the arbitrator to determine, not the Court.

Both parties have presented extensive memorandums of law and briefs. The question of whether the arbitration may proceed as a class action is not a gateway issue for this Court to determine. The issue of the status as a class action is one for the arbitrator.

Whether there is an arbitral issue presented is a proper determination for the Court. The question is whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the grievance and the provisions of the CBA. The grievance stated is the scope of health insurance coverage of retirees' adult children.

The Court's review is extremely limited in an application to stay an arbitration. The Court must look to the CBA language to assess whether there is a reasonable relationship that warrants arbitration of the issue. The CBA contains Article 29 which is entitled "Retiree Health Insurance." This Article contains several sections that are relevant:

Section 29.1: . . . . [Retirees who meet the requirements] shall receive coverage under the Blue Point 2 Value plan fully paid by the County . . . .

Section 29.2: . . . [Retirees who meet the requirements] shall receive coverage under the Blue Point 2 Value plan at the same contribution rates applicable for active employees . . . .

Section 29.4: Retiring employees meeting the foregoing provisos may continue participation in the health insurance plan in which they are participating immediately prior to retirement.

Section 29.5: It shall be the employee's responsibility to initiate membership in the plan and any change in family status in the Department of Human Resources.

Section 29.6: The spouse of a deceased County retiree may participate in the County's health insurance plan . . . .

(Attorney Affirmation of Karlee S. Bolaños, Exhibit A-CBA, Article 29 [9-19-16]).

The CBA also sets forth the Grievance Procedure agreed to by the parties. A grievance is defined as "any claimed violation of a specific provision of this agreement, or any matter, which relates to employee health and safety" (Attorney Affirmation of Karlee S. Bolaños, Exhibit A-CBA, Article 44 [9-19-16]). Here the Union seeks arbitration to determine the scope of the health insurance coverage for retirees' adult children.

Based upon all the submissions, it is determined that there is a reasonable relationship between the scope of health insurance coverage for retirees' adult children, which is the subject matter of the grievance, and the provisions of the CBA for health insurance for retirees. Article 29 of the CBA has sufficient language to raise questions about the scope of coverage for a retirees adult children. The determination as to what that scope of coverage might be is for an arbitrator to decide.

The motion of the County for a permanent stay of any Arbitration between the parties as to the matter of an arbitration demand of the Monroe County Command Sheriff Unit, filed on or about August 29, 2016, regarding the scope of the health insurance coverage to which County retirees' adult children contend they are entitled is DENIED.

The cross-motion of Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 828, Unit 7423 to deny Petitioner's motion to stay arbitration is GRANTED. The cross motion to compel Petitioner to proceed with the arbitration proceedings initiated by Respondent CSEA against Petitioner pursuant to CPLR §7503 is GRANTED.

SUBMIT ORDER

Counsel for the Respondent, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local #828, Unit 7423, shall submit an Order, with this Decision attached, upon approval of all Counsel.