Mandatory Duty of Fair Representation for CBA Claims: Limiting Article 78 Relief

Introduction

Matter of Dourdounas v. City of New York, 2025 NYSlipOp 01671, is a landmark decision of the New York Court of Appeals addressing the procedural route by which a public‐sector employee may enforce rights arising solely under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). George Dourdounas, a teacher in the New York City public school system, sought injunctive relief under CPLR article 78 after exhausting a multi-step grievance process provided for in his CBA with the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). The Court, led by Chief Judge Wilson, clarified that disputes grounded exclusively in a CBA cannot be pursued in an article 78 proceeding unless the employee also alleges—and ultimately proves—a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation or the agreement itself expressly permits direct suit.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of Dourdounas’s petition, albeit on different grounds. It rejected the timeliness argument and the exhaustion analysis employed below, holding instead that under Matter of Board of Educ., Commack Union Free School Dist. v. Ambach, 70 NY2d 501 (1987), an employee seeking to enforce a CBA must either: (1) proceed through the union’s grievance/arbitration machinery and, if the union fails in its duty of fair representation, bring a plenary breach-of-contract + fair representation claim; or (2) rely on any direct enforcement avenue expressly provided by the agreement. Because Dourdounas alleged only a CBA breach and had not alleged any failure by the UFT to represent him fairly, his article 78 petition was improper and must be dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Ambach (70 NY2d 501, 1987): Held that CBA‐based claims must be channeled through the union grievance process, and only post-duty-of-fair-representation breach may an employee sue directly.
Abiele Contr., Inc. (91 NY2d 1, 1997): Confirmed that CBA breaches are contract claims, not proper subjects of article 78 relief.
Obot (89 NY2d 883, 1996): Set forth that plenary actions must allege both a breach of contract by the employer and a breach of duty of fair representation by the union.
Plummer v. Klepak (48 NY2d 486, 1979): Recognized exhaustion requirements for article 78 where a mandatory grievance applies, but did not decide the proper remedy vehicle for CBA claims.
Queensborough (41 NY2d 926, 1977): Applied to non-CBA statutory claims and held that unrelated contractual grievances do not toll statutory deadlines.
Frasier (71 NY2d 763, 1988) and Kahn (18 NY3d 457, 2012): Clarified that optional grievance procedures for probationary teacher dismissals do not toll CPLR deadlines for statutory challenges.

Legal Reasoning

1. Source of Rights Determines the Forum: Rights stemming from statute or regulation may be pursued in article 78. Rights created solely by a CBA are contract claims and cannot be shoe-horned into article 78.

2. Mandatory Grievance + Union Role: Where a CBA establishes a mandatory multi-step grievance/arbitration process, employees are bound by it. The union’s role as exclusive bargaining representative is protected; courts will not bypass negotiated dispute resolution unless the union breaches its duty of fair representation.

3. Duty of Fair Representation: Triggering a direct suit requires an allegation that the union mishandled the grievance in bad faith, discriminatorily, or arbitrarily—thereby depriving the member of an effective remedy.

4. Vehicle of Enforcement: Pure CBA breaches must be pursued in a plenary breach-of-contract action joined, or at least alleging against, the union or with proof of its duty-of-fair-representation breach. Article 78 cannot serve as a back-door for such claims.

Impact

This decision reaffirms and sharpens the procedural boundary between contract disputes and administrative review in New York public employment:

It underscores the primacy of negotiated grievance mechanisms in CBAs, discouraging forum-shopping by disgruntled employees.
It protects unions’ collective-bargaining prerogatives by requiring proof of unfair representation before courts will intervene.
It provides clarity for lawyers and HR professionals regarding the statute of limitations and the proper pleading vehicle for mixed CBA/statutory claims.
It may prompt unions and employers to draft clearer direct enforcement clauses where they wish to permit standalone suits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 78 Proceeding: A special form of judicial review in New York for challenging administrative actions (e.g., procedure, abuse of discretion, or failure to perform duty).
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): A contract between an employer and a union that sets terms of employment and dispute resolution procedures, including grievances and arbitration.
Mandatory Grievance Process: A required, step-by-step procedure in the CBA by which employees must seek remedy for alleged CBA violations before turning to a court.
Duty of Fair Representation: An implied obligation on a union to represent all members impartially, in good faith, and without discrimination; breach of this duty can open the door to direct litigation.
Plenary Action: A full civil lawsuit (as opposed to an expedited article 78) in which parties can litigate contract and representative-duty claims with discovery and a trial.
Exhaustion Rule: The principle that internal remedies provided by contract or regulation must be completed before seeking judicial relief.

Conclusion

Matter of Dourdounas v. City of New York cements the rule that disputes arising exclusively under a collective bargaining agreement must follow the Ambach framework: exhaust the mandatory grievance process, and then, if and only if the union breaches its duty of fair representation (or the CBA itself permits direct suit), file a plenary contract action. Article 78 remains reserved for statutory or regulatory rights. This decision preserves the integrity of collective bargaining, protects the union’s representative role, and provides definitive guidance on the procedural pathway for public employees enforcing CBA rights.