The union representing a laid-off city of Dunkirk employee has filed a motion against the city’s attempt to get out of arbitration over the matter.

Kim Robbins was a legal secretary for the city but her position was not funded in the 2025 budget, and she was laid off Feb. 7. She was informed of the impending layoff Jan. 6, and AFSCME Council 66 Local 912 filed a grievance on her behalf Jan. 17. The city of Dunkirk filed a motion March 4 in state Supreme Court to “stay” arbitration of the grievance.

According to the union, its collective bargaining agreement with the city includes a clause stating that Dunkirk agreed to not lay off any member of the union. Retirements, voluntary quits, and discharges for cause are not included in that prohibition. Dunkirk violated the agreement by terminating Robbins, the union alleges.

The union’s latest New York Supreme Court filing in the case, dated May 20, states the city “has misapplied the applicable contract language” when it tries to deny on procedural grounds that arbitration is necessary.

Dunkirk also argued against arbitration because the union contract expired Dec. 31, 2024, before Robbins was laid off. However, the union cites the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law, under which all provisions of an expired contract remain in place until a new one is negotiated.

The union also criticized the city’s citation of financial trouble in firing Robbins. “Financial reasons are nowhere stated in the negotiated language as an exception to the no layoff clause.”

Local 912’s court filing goes on to argue, “The city at this early stage wants the court to short-circuit the grievance process, denying AFSCME and its employee clear contractual rights, and in essence taking away the proper and recognized role of an arbitrator in rendering a determination after a full and fair hearing. … The city should not benefit from its own actions of mismanagement to avoid an impartial adjudication of its actions by an arbitrator.”

City Attorney Elliott Raimondo recently filed some documents of his own in the Robbins case, in support of the city’s contention that dire financial straits mean it can’t afford to employ her. He sent the State Supreme Court on May 29 the terms of the city’s Revenue Anticipation Note that’s due in late July at around $12.7 million. “The city currently does not have this money,” Raimondo wrote.

He also attached a copy of the city’s 2023 audit, drawing attention to an unassigned fund balance with more than $15.2 million in liabilities and a budget deficit of $6.3 million.