Arbitrators Not Bound By The Rules Of Evidence

Applying the “Rules of Evidence” in arbitration proceedings
In re Social Service Employees Union, Local 371, v The City of New York, et al., Appellate Division, First Department, 2008 NY Slip Op 02889, Decided on April 1, 2008

Local 371 filed a petition challenging an arbitrator’s award. Justice Alice Schlesinger, Supreme Court, New York County, annulled the award but the Appellate unanimously reversed Justice Schlesinger’s ruling “on the law.”

The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, said the arbitrator was not bound by rules of evidence that might otherwise control in a judicial proceeding nor did the arbitrator exceed her power by admitting into evidence a memorandum from the director of the facility where the grievant was employed to a fellow employee about the status of the employee's complaint about the grievant that was not relevant to the arbitration.

The Appellate Division also rejected Local 371’s argument that the arbitrator violated a provision of the collective bargaining agreement, noting that the limitation contained in the contract provision cited by the union was not specifically related to the power of the arbitrator.

In addition, the court commented that “even where an arbitrator makes errors of law or fact, ‘courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the award to their sense of justice’” nor was the item admitted into evidence that Local 371 challenged “so prejudicial that any mistake in accepting it was ‘so gross or palpable as to establish fraud or misconduct” on the part of the arbitrator.

Unless otherwise provided by law, hearing officers and arbitrators conducting quasi-judicial administrative hearings are not required to apply the rules of evidence that a court would follow.

Source: Initially published on the Internet in New York Public Personnel Law. Reproduced with permission. Copyright© 2006, 2007, 2008, Public Employment Law Press.