(dissenting in part). In March 2004, the Civil Service Commission, having reviewed the civil service employment practices of the City of Long Beach, recommended that the City cease to rely on provisional appointments to fill a number of its civil service provisions, and instead, as far as practicable, make appointments based on competitive examination.
This case concerns the period following the issuance of the Commission’s report, when the City moved toward implementing its recommendations. In particular, what is at issue here are provisions of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated more than 30 years ago between the City and the CSEA, dealing with “tenure” provisions for provisional employees.
I agree that, as an arbitrator may not rely on the portion of the CBA that purports to grant tenure to provisional employees *473after one year of service (section 6.1-0), or on the section that prohibits termination until and unless the City appoints from an eligible list (section 6-1.1 [c]), a stay should be granted with regard to arbitration of section 6.1-0 and the first part of section 6-1.1. I conclude, however, that the second component of the bargained-for section 6-1.1 (c) — that a displaced provisional worker will be transferred into an open position for which he or she is qualified — is arbitrable.
Maria Almonte was employed by the City in a provisional capacity as a bus dispatcher from 1989 to June 30, 2004. Prior to serving as a dispatcher, she was employed by the City of Long Beach in the noncompetitive position of bus driver from 1985 to 1989. Ms. Almonte served the City in these two positions for close to 20 years. After being notified that she would be terminated due to her status as a provisional worker serving beyond the statutory period, she requested that, pursuant to section 6-1.1 (c) of the CBA, she be given a vacant bus driver position for which she was qualified; she had previously served in the bus driver position and held a valid driver’s license. The City refused her request and hired someone else the day after her termination as dispatcher became effective.
On June 4, 2004, Ms. Almonte filed a grievance with the City pursuant to article X of the CBA, which sets forth procedures for resolution of any dispute concerning the “interpretation or application of express terms of the Agreement” (section 10-1.5), and provides that any dispute not settled in step one or two of the grievance procedure may be submitted to arbitration by either party (section 10-1.4). Her grievance claimed that she was “wrongfully terminated as per CSEA CBA,” and that she “should be reinstated as a Bus Driver.” The CSEA initiated a class action grievance on behalf of provisional employees terminated in violation of the CBA, joined Ms. Almonte as a petitioner, and on June 22, 2004, filed two demands for arbitration. The second demand, addressing Ms. Almonte’s particular request for relief, stated that “grievant should be afforded the right to be placed in a position she is qualified for, if a vacancy exists. There is a Bus Driver vacancy available on a June 7 job posting that she is qualified for. Grievant should be slotted into that vacancy.” Supreme Court granted the City a stay of arbitration and the Appellate Division affirmed.
For the reasons that follow, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that we need not concern ourselves with the specific relief requested. Ms. Almonte was entitled to have her grievance submitted to arbitration in accordance with the CBA.
*474Initially, although the grievance cites to section 6.1-1, we are not prohibited from analyzing the request for placement, a request that relies on the second component of section 6.1-1 (c) independent of the first. An interpretation of the placement relief requested by Ms. Almonte as separable from the purported grant of “tenure” otherwise included in the provision gives meaning to the intent of the parties to the extent permitted by the Civil Service Law (see, e.g. Matter of Cohoes City School Dist. v Cohoes Teachers Assn., 40 NY2d 774, 778 [1976] [upholding bargained-for procedural protections for probationary employees although finding provision granting tenure unenforceable]).
Implicit in the Civil Service Law is the conclusion that, for purposes of the CBA, a position may be “open” only if it is noncompetitive, or if a different competitive position is available for which there is no eligible list. As acknowledged by the parties, where an eligible list does exist, the position would be filled pursuant to the mandatory appointment provisions and the one-in-three requirement of the Civil Service Law (see Civil Service Law §§ 65, 61; CBA § 6.1-1).
Accordingly, placement of a terminated provisional employee into an open position would not disrupt a merit-based appointment. It would only acknowledge a bargained-for preference in favor of a provisional employee within a field of candidates qualified for a noncompetitive position, or within a competitive position for which there were no eligible candidates (see, e.g. Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 81 [2003] [upholding award that “did not force the Board to hire or select a nonqualified candidate for a teaching position”]; Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d 746 [1978] [a municipal employer may agree to give preference for filling of vacancies to certain individuals among applicants equally qualified for the position]).
The majority takes issue with granting a worker who has been provisionally employed for more than one year what it deems to be rights superior to those granted a provisional worker who is replaced by the City within a nine-month period as per statutory mandate. The Civil Service Law itself, however, does not prohibit the City and the CSEA from negotiating limited protections for provisional employees based on the length of time they have served the City. Any such prohibition *475stems from the statute’s requirement that provisional appointments be terminated after nine months (Civil Service Law § 65 [2]), from its failure to provide provisional employees the right to a hearing or to an appeal (see Civil Service Law §§ 75, 76), and from its merit-based system of appointment from eligible lists based on examination (see Civil Service Law § 65).
Ms. Almonte’s placement in the bus driver position at issue does not conflict with any of the implicit statutory prohibitions. The City was free to terminate Ms. Almonte prior to the expiration of the nine-month period as required by statute and chose not to do so. In her demand for arbitration, she is not requesting review of her termination, nor does she ask for reinstatement in contravention of an eligible list. “Where an arbitrator may be able to fashion a remedy not in violation of public policy,” the Court should not intervene (see Matter of Committee of Interns & Residents [Dinkins], 86 NY2d 478, 484 [1995]).
Plainly, provisional employment cannot ripen into permanent appointment (see Koso v Greene, 260 NY 491, 495 [1933]). Provisional workers have no preferential rights of permanent employment or of “retention over those higher in eligibility” (id.; see also Matter of Preddice v Callanan, 69 NY2d 812, 813 [1987] [provisional workers have “no expectation of tenure and rights attendant thereto”]).
The placement requested here, however, is not tantamount to permitting a provisional appointment to ripen into permanency, or to granting a provisional employee rights equivalent to tenure. Ms. Almonte is not requesting reinstatement to her provisional position as bus dispatcher, for which she is admittedly not qualified. She is instead simply requesting placement in a separate noncompetitive position for which she is qualified. Upon placement, she would be subject to the mandatory probationary period preceding any permanent appointment (see 4 NYCRR 4.5 [a]), or subject to termination at any time if the placement were provisional. In either case, the City could terminate Ms. Almonte prior to the vesting of any rights afforded a permanent employee.
The cases concerning provisional appointments cited by the majority do not address the situation presented here: a provisional employee seeking placement in a noncompetitive position pursuant to a negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Rather, they involve employees seeking continuation or reinstatement to a competitive position under the Civil Service Law, *476often ahead of candidates with greater eligibility (see Preddice, 69 NY2d 812 [provisional employee has no right to reinstatement or back pay notwithstanding jury verdict that he was discharged in bad faith]; Matter of Montero v Lum, 68 NY2d 253 [1986] [probationary period for permanent position began when employee passed civil service exam, not when he was appointed to temporary position]; Matter of Hilsenrad v Miller, 284 NY 445 [1940] [temporary appointment to permanent position did not become permanent upon five-month extension]; Koso, 260 NY 491 [1933] [term of preceding provisional appointment may not be counted toward length of permanent appointment for purpose of layoffs based on seniority within competitive position]). The clear requirement, evident in these cases, of merit-based selection within competitive positions where practicable need not be confused with a prohibition on agreements granting a limited preference based on seniority within noncompetitive positions. Significantly, not one of the cases cited involves a bargained-for agreement between sophisticated parties or under authority of the Taylor Law.
When there is no direct conflict with statutory or decisional law, this Court favors a policy of “noninterference” with the arbitration of legal disputes (Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629 [1979]). Correlatively, we have allowed arbitrators “expansive power ... to fashion fair determinations of the parties’ rights and remedies” (Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO,. 99 NY2d 1, 7 [2002]). This policy of encouraging arbitration is even weightier when it comes to public employment, as not only does the Taylor Law require collective bargaining, but also “public policy in this State favors arbitral resolution of public sector labor disputes” (Matter of Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. [Buffalo Bd. of Educ.], 90 NY2d 364, 372 [1997]). In fact, we have noted that “arbitration of labor disputes under collective bargaining agreements is part and parcel of the collective bargaining process itself” (Transport Workers, 99 NY2d at 8, quoting Steelworkers v Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 US 574, 578 [I960]), as labor arbitrators are uniquely qualified to resolve disputes due to their personal experience, knowledge and competence in the field.
Finally, the majority assumes that requiring the parties to abide by the provision they negotiated will provide a disincentive to the City to offer testing for competitive positions and to otherwise comply with the time limits set forth in section 65 of *477the Civil Service Law. Not so. A permissible interpretation of the negotiated placement provision would merely place a terminated employee in an open noncompetitive position or in a competitive position for which a noneligible person could otherwise be appointed on a provisional basis. It would not fill a permanent competitive position that requires examination. The City can, and should, give tests and create eligible lists, as recommended by the Civil Service Commission. The fact that the section of the CBA at issue does not commence until after one year’s service is similarly irrelevant. The City’s apparent difficulty in limiting the length of its provisional appointments to the statutory nine-month period should not provide yet another policy reason to allow it to avoid a bargained-for provision, and to adversely affect the status of civil service employees relying in good faith on protections afforded them by the CBA.
The provision of the CBA at issue affords limited seniority protection to provisional employees like Maria Almonte who would, after long service, be left with no City employment at all. As we recently confirmed in Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807 (8 NY3d 513 [2007]), in a case (such as this one) where a lawful interpretation of a provision of the parties’ negotiated agreement is possible, the Court’s strong policy of promoting arbitration of public labor disputes requires that we allow the arbitration to proceed.
Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith and Jones concur with Judge Pigott; Chief Judge Kaye dissents in part and votes to modify in a separate opinion in which Judge Cipajrick concurs.
Order affirmed, with costs.