Guidelines followed in determining if an individual was provided administrative due process in a quasi-judicial hearing

Guidelines followed in determining if an individual was provided administrative due process in a quasi-judicial hearing

Matter of Hildreth v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 2011 NY Slip Op 03066, Appellate Division, Second Department

In considering this appeal from an adverse administrative decision that resulted in the  revocation of Wilbur Hildreth’s driver's license pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law §1194 for one year as the result of his refusal to submit to a chemical blood-alcohol test, the Appellate Division addressed a number of issues concerning administrative adjudication procedures.

The court said that:

1. In order to annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination;

2. Substantial evidence is "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact;

3. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by an administrative agency where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists; and

4. Unlike the constitutional right to confrontation in criminal matters, parties in administrative proceedings have only a limited right to cross-examine adverse witnesses as a matter of due process.

In response to Hildreth’s argument that the administrative proceeding should have been dismissed” for failure to hold a hearing within a reasonable time as required under the State Administrative Procedure Act §301 or within six months from the date the DMV received notice of his chemical test refusal as required under 15 NYCRR 127.2(b)(2),” the Appellate Division said that the time limitations imposed on administrative agencies by their own regulations are not mandatory.

Unless the individual can show the delay caused “substantial prejudice,” he or she is not  entitled to relief for an agency's noncompliance with its own “time limits” controlling the proceeding.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_03066.htm

.

Crediting prior public service upon reemployment by a public employer

Crediting prior public service upon reemployment by a public employer

Cherniak v Office of Court Administration, 269 A.D.2d 680

From time to time an individual will claim that he or she should be given credit for certain benefits, typically for the purpose of determining salary or member service in a retirement system, based on his or her prior service with another public employer. A claim for “service credit for salary” based on prior state service was the basic issue considered by the Appellate Division in the Cherniak case.

Samuel A. Cherniak, then an employee of the Unified Court System [OCA], accepted an appointment as an Assistant Attorney-General [AAG] with the State Law Department and served as an AAG until October 1995. In early 1998 OCA appointed him to the position of Court Attorney. OCA credited Cherniak with his OCA service prior to his employment as an AAG in setting his rate of compensation. However, said OCA, such credit upon reinstatement was allowed only for OCA service and it refused to give him any credit for his AAG service with the New York State Department of Law.

OCA gave Cherniak two reasons for it action. First, OCA’s rules allowed it to grant such credit upon reinstatement of former OCA employees. Second, the Comptroller’s policy allowed non-OCA prior State service to be given only to an employee who returned to public service within one year. Cherniak appealed, challenging the Comptroller’s interpretation of “continuous service” to mean a “break in service for salary determination” of one year or less.

Both the Section 37.8 of the Judiciary Law and Section 131.5 of the Civil Service Law allow for approving salary rates greater then the minimum of the salary grade for the position upon “reinstatement” for individuals having “continuous service.”

Was the Comptroller’s interpretation of the term “continuous service” reasonable?

The Appellate Division thought it was. Pointing out that purpose of these provisions is to encourage employees to remain in State service, the court said that “the Comptroller’s policy promotes that purpose by allowing salary credit for prior service where an employee returns to State service after a brief break in service, but not where there is a substantial break in service.”

Cherniak tried to persuade the Appellate Division that the Comptroller’s interpretation was irrational, contending that there was no particular reason for the Comptroller’s selection of one year as the limit for a break in service.

The court disagreed, holding that it was rational for the Comptroller to construe the statutory phrase “continuously occupying” a position as encompassing “a relatively brief break in service” -- one year -- while no rational construction of the phrase would encompass Cherniak’s 2 1/2 year break in service.

 .

Eligibility for overtime

Eligibility for overtime

Spradling v City of Tulsa, CA10, 95 F.3d 1492

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has rejected a claim by district fire chiefs employed by Tulsa, Oklahoma, for overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA].

The district chiefs claimed that such payments were required by the FLSA. The circuit court disagreed, ruling that the chiefs were “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees” within the meaning of FLSA and therefore not subject to its overtime provisions. In other words, they were “exempt” employees.

In Alden v Maine, 527 U.S. 706, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars state employees suing their state employer in federal court without the state’s consent.

However, in Alden the court noted an “important limitation” to the principle of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment -- such immunity does not cover “lesser entities” such as political subdivisions of a state.

In the words of the Supreme Court, “[t]he immunity does not extend to suits prosecuted against a municipal corporation or other governmental entity that is not an arm of the State.”

The City of Tulsa case demonstrates that federal courts will continue to hear claims brought by public employees alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act involving a political subdivision of a state that is not an “arm of the state.”

However, it could be argued that because sworn officers serving with a municipal police department are exercising “the police powers of the state,” their employer is “an arm of the state” and thus the municipality has Eleventh Amendment immunity from law suits in federal court.
.

Individual’s “lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility” for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer’s disciplinary determination

Individual’s “lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility” for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer’s disciplinary determination

Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 03131, Appellate Division, First Department

Barbara Cipollaro was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law by her employer, the New York City Department of Education, alleging that she had knowingly defrauded Department of $98,000 over a two-year period by enrolling two of her children in New York City public schools while she and her family lived in Westchester County.

The hearing officer found Cipollaro guilty of the charges and she was terminated from her position.

Cipollaro filed a petition pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules seeking a court order vacating hearing officer decision and the penalty imposed.

The Appellate Division ruled that there was no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's determination. Significantly the court said that in view of Cipollaro’s “lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility for [her] actions, as well as the harm caused by her actions, the penalty of dismissal, even if there was an otherwise adequate performance record, cannot be said to shock the conscience” [of the court].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_03131.htm

.

.

Independent Contractors vs. Employees

Independent Contractors vs. Employees

Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/

Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

The line between who is and who is not an employee is often a blur. However, it is an important line to draw as it can have consequences. Non-employees are not protected under our employment laws and are often not eligible for employee benefits.

IRS Gets Class Conscious is an interesting April 2011 article from the ABA Journal which addresses some of these issues. Of significant note is that both the IRS and the DOL are cracking down on employee misclassification. So, employers beware!

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Randall comments: The ABA Journal article refers to a “20-factor IRS” for guidance when classifying individuals as workers or independent contractors.

An employer must generally withhold income taxes; withhold and pay social security and Medicare taxes; and pay unemployment taxes on wages paid to an employee. An employer does not generally have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors.

To help determine whether an individual is an employee under the common-law rules, the IRS has identified the 20 factors set out below as guidelines in determining whether sufficient control is present to establish an employer-employee relationship.

These factors should be considered guidelines. Not every factor is applicable in every situation, and the degree of importance of each factor varies depending on the type of work and individual circumstances. However, all relevant factors are considered in making a determination, and no one factor is decisive.

The 20 factors indicating whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor are:

1. Instructions. An employee must comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work. Even if no instructions are given, the control factor is present if the employer has the right to control how the work results are achieved.

2. Training. An employee may be trained to perform services in a particular manner. Independent contractors ordinarily use their own methods and receive no training from the purchasers of their services.

3. Integration. An employee's services are usually integrated into the business operations because the services are important to the success or continuation of the business. This shows that the employee is subject to direction and control.

4. Services rendered personally. An employee renders services personally. This shows that the employer is interested in the methods as well as the results.

5. Hiring assistants. An employee works for an employer who hires, supervises, and pays workers. An independent contractor can hire, supervise, and pay assistants under a contract that requires him or her to provide materials and labor and to be responsible only for the result.

6. Continuing relationship. An employee generally has a continuing relationship with an employer. A continuing relationship may exist even if work is performed at recurring although irregular intervals.

7. Set hours of work. An employee usually has set hours of work established by an employer. An independent contractor generally can set his or her own work hours.

8. Full-time required. An employee may be required to work or be available full-time. This indicates control by the employer. An independent contractor can work when and for whom he or she chooses.

9. Work done on premises. An employee usually works on the premises of an employer, or works on a route or at a location designated by an employer.

10. Order or sequence set. An employee may be required to perform services in the order or sequence set by an employer. This shows that the employee is subject to direction and control.

11. Reports. An employee may be required to submit reports to an employer. This shows that the employer maintains a degree of control.

12. Payments. An employee is generally paid by the hour, week, or month. An independent contractor is usually paid by the job or on straight commission.

13. Expenses. An employee's business and travel expenses are generally paid by an employer. This shows that the employee is subject to regulation and control.

14. Tools and materials. An employee is normally furnished significant tools, materials, and other equipment by an employer.

15. Investment. An independent contractor has a significant investment in the facilities he or she uses in performing services for someone else.

16. Profit or loss. An independent contractor can make a profit or suffer a loss.

17. Works for more than one person or firm. An independent contractor is generally free to provide his or her services to two or more unrelated persons or firms at the same time.

18. Offers services to general public. An independent contractor makes his or her services available to the general public.

19. Right to fire. An employee can be fired by an employer. An independent contractor cannot be fire so long as he or she produces a result that meets the specifications of the contract.

20. Right to quit. An employee can quit his or her job at any time without incurring liability. An independent contractor usually agrees to complete a specific job and is responsible for its satisfactory completion, or is legally obligated to make good for failure to complete it.

.

Assignment of personnel

Assignment of personnel

Westchester Co. v Westchester Co. Correction Officers Benev. Asso., Inc., 269 AD2 528

Sometimes an arbitrator will make an award that sets out terms and conditions with respect to the assignment of personnel. In deciding Westchester, the Appellate Division identified some of the limitations on the authority of an arbitrator to require such placements or assignments.

A hearing was held to determine if Westchester County correction officer Elsie Vallespi should be reinstated from disability leave. Vallespi had been placed on such leave pursuant to Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law.

Vallespi was placed on Section 207-c leave after she alleged that she suffered “psychological ramifications” as a result of a “verbal assault” by a supervisor. She returned to her job a few months later but on the day she returned she “had incidental contact with the same supervisor” and, as a result, again went out on an extended disability leave.

The arbitrator decided that Vallespi could now be reinstated “without restriction”, provided that “she is assigned to (1) the Women’s Unit for the 3-11 pm shift; (2) [the supervisor] is assigned to another shift or to a different unit; and (3) for the first 30 days of [Vallespi’s] return, [the supervisor] is not to be assigned on overtime more than once to the same shift and unit as [Vallespi]”.

The county objected and filed an Article 75 petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award. The Appellate Division affirmed a lower court’s order modifying the arbitration award by striking the assignment limitations directed by the arbitrator.

Agreeing with the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division said that “the arbitrator lacked the authority to direct how and when the County could assign its correction officer personnel.” Imposing such conditions, said the court, violated a strong public policy.

The court held that the terms and conditions set by the arbitrator “usurped the authority of the Westchester Department of Correction to determine where and when to assign its correction officer personnel.”

Considering the need to manage and control of the County’s prison population, “it would be imprudent to allow a third-party such as an arbitrator to determine the placement of correction officers....”

Clearly here the court was influenced by the special and unique duties of correction officers and the responsibility of the county to maintain security of its prison population. In another situation, such as directing the assignment or placement of individuals not having such security responsibilities, the courts probably would confirm an arbitration award providing for the particular assignment of an individual.

The courts may apply the rationale set out in Westchester in cases involving arbitration awards affecting the assignment of teachers and other public employees having specializes duties or for which special qualifications have been established.

.

Employment at will

Employment at will
DiLacio v New York City District Council of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 2011 NY Slip Op 00175, Appellate Division, Second Department

In this action George DiLacio, Jr. sued the District Council in an effort to recover damages for alleged wrongful termination of employment and defamation.

The Appellate Division ruled that both complaints should have been dismissed.

With respect to DiLacio allegations concerning “wrongful termination,” the court pointed out that he had served as “an employee at will.” Citing Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, the Appellate Division ruled that DiLacio’s allegation that the District Council had violated their duty to terminate his employment "only in good faith and with fair dealing" failed to state a recognized cause of action under New York law.

Under New York law, "absent a constitutionally impermissible purpose, a statutory proscription, or an express limitation in the individual contract of employment, an employer's right at any time to terminate an employment at will remains unimpaired."

Unless the individual has a statutory or contractual right to a pre-termination hearing he or she may be terminated at any time so long as the termination is not otherwise unlawful under State or federal law.

As to DiLacio’s defamation claim, the court said that although the termination letter containing the phrase "severe dereliction of duty," it had not been published to anyone other than DiLacio himself.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00175.htm

Contracting out a negotiating unit's work

Contracting out a negotiating unit's work
Vestal Employees Asso., NEA/NY v Vestal CSD, 94 N.Y.2d 409

Management may attempt to “contract out” work claiming that to do so is more efficient or less expensive or because the tasks are “too technical” for its employees to perform. Unions typically object to contracting out, contending that its unit members can perform the tasks as well or better than “outsiders” and that it is more economical to use unit members than to go outside the organization for this purpose.

Suppose a school district asks a BOCES to enter into a contract to perform services that the school district’s employees are current performing. Is such “contracting out” of services a mandatory subject of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Taylor Law? This was the critical question in the Vestal Employees Association case. The ruling sets out the tests that the Court of Appeals said should be used in deciding such issues.

Typically the contracting out of exclusive unit work is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Further, if the work to be contracted out is not “exclusive unit work,” the impact of such action of the collective bargaining unit may constitute a mandatory subject to negotiations under the Taylor Law.

In deciding the Vestal case, the Court of Appeals, following the rationale set out in its ruling in Webster Central School District v PERB, 75 NY2d 6, confirmed an exception this general rule -- where legislative scheme provides for such contracting out, as in the case of a school district-BOCES contract arrangement, the employer may unilaterally decide to “sub-contract” work to a BOCES.

In the Webster case the Court of Appeals held that Education Law Section 1950(4)(bb) allowed a school district to substitute BOCES summer school programs for its own summer school programs without first undertaking collective bargaining with its teachers’ unions.

In Vestal, the high court said that another provision set out in the same section, Section 1950(4)(d), allows a school district to contract with a BOCES to perform printing services then being performed by one of its own employees without first negotiating the change with the union.

The case began in September 1995, when the Vestal Central School District “contracted” for printing services with the Broome-Tioga BOCES. The decision indicates that the single Vestal district employee affected by the printing contract agreed to transfer to the BOCES and currently provides printing services for Vestal and a second school district.

The Vestal Employees Association filed an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board [PERB]. PERB’s Administrative Law Judge ruled that the district’s action constituted an improper practice and that it could not unilaterally subcontract out printing services performed exclusively by a bargaining unit employee (Matter of Vestal Employees Association, 30 PERB 4514).

On appeal, PERB reversed the ALJ’s ruling (Matter of Vestal Employees Association, 30 PERB 3029), holding that Section 1950(4)(d) allows unilateral changes of shared noninstructional services. PERB relied on the Commissioner of Education’s approval of the contract as evidence that “the printing services in issue in this case fall within the ‘other services’ authorized by the statute.”

Although a state supreme court justice sustained PERB’s ruling, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that “the broad scope of the Commissioner’s authority to approve cooperative services contracts could not overcome the Taylor Law’s mandate for public sector employment collective bargaining [Matter of Vestal Employees Association, 260 AD2d 699]. The Court of Appeals overturned the Appellate Division’s holding, reinstating PERB’s determination.

The high court said that the answer turned on whether or not printing falls within the scope of Section 1950(4)(d)(1). If it does, the statute must be examined to determine if there is any indication of a legislative intent that a school district’s decision to subcontract printing services was to be a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

The Court of Appeals concluded that “[i]t is evident from the statute that the Legislature did not intend to limit the ‘available shared services’ to those enumerated in the statute” and delegated responsibility to the Commissioner of Education to identify the types of services that can be shared by school districts for the benefit of students. Accordingly, the statute does not limit contracts for “such other services as the commissioner may approve” to those that are “educational” or “nurturing” and therefore allows a school district to enter into a contract with a BOCES for such non-instructional services as printing.

In support of this view, the court noted that in 1996 the Legislature specifically limited the Commissioner’s discretion to approve school district/BOCES contracts in specified areas. Chapter 474 of the Laws of 1996 sets out the activities which “the commissioner shall not be authorized to approve as aidable shared services.”

Since printing does not fall within the list of prohibited “shared services,” and is a type of service that would promote the policy underlying the statute, the Court of Appeals concluded that “that printing falls within ... a service the Commissioner may approve to be offered on a cooperative basis by BOCES.”

The bottom line: the court decided that the statutory scheme embodies a legislative intent that a school district’s decision to subcontract printing services be exempt from collective bargaining.

This ruling has significant implications with respect to a school district’s plans to have a BOCES provide services that the district itself is then providing utilizing its own work force.

However, the court pointed out that Section 1950(4)(bb), which controlled in the Webster case, incorporated the job protection provisions. In contrast, the Court of Appeals noted that Section 1950(4)(d) “does not expressly refer to any job protection provisions for public employees whose jobs are transferred to a BOCES district as a result of a shared services contract.”

Here, however, the Vestal employee, an employee in the classified service, was “afforded certain protections upon the transfer of his functions as provided by Section 70.2 of the Civil Service Law. According, said the court, “[w]e need not explore the exact scope of the employee’s rights under Civil Service Law Section 70(2) because his Civil Service status has not been affected by the transfer and no allegation has been made to the contrary.”

This suggests that the courts might apply a stricter standard in situations where the contract has an adverse impact on the employment situations of the employees affected by the change.

A program takeover by BOCES pursuant to Education Law Section 3014-a involving classified service personnel is considered a transfer pursuant to Section 70 of the Civil Service Law. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals said that “the broad recognition that BOCES program takeovers are to be considered transfers under Section 70 implies that any action taken by BOCES pursuant to Section 1950 of the Education Law will not be subject to collective bargaining.” 

Filing of disciplinary charges against an employee must timely

Filing of disciplinary charges against an employee must timely

Transit Authority v Campbell, OATH Index No. 343/00

As a general rule, a statute of limitations continues to run with respect to the deadline for filing a timely action in the proper forum even if the complaint has been filed in a different, but incorrect, forum or notwithstanding the fact that another action is pending. This point was made clear to the Transit Authority when OATH Administrative Law Judge Ray Fleischhacker vacated Section 75 disciplinary charges it had filed against Colette Campbell as untimely.

In 1996 the New York City Transit Authority reassigned Campbell to a lower grade position. Campbell filed an Article 78 petition claiming the action constituted a disciplinary demotion, in violation of her Section 75 rights to due process. The court agreed, finding the Authority’s action constituted disciplinary action within the meaning of Civil Service Law Section 75.

It was conceded that on August 16, 1996, without a hearing, and as a result of the events which form the basis for the charges in this case, the Authority reassigned the respondent from a Level II supervisor to a Level I supervisor, with a significant cut in pay.

The Appellate Division rejected the Authority’s argument that “its action was a transfer permitted by Personnel Director rules without resort to a hearing” [Campbell v NYC Transit Authority, 253 AD2d 813], holding that Campbell was entitled to a Section 75 disciplinary hearing. The Court of Appeals denied the Authority’s petition to appeal on April 29, 1999 [93 N.Y.2d 805].

In July 1999 the Authority served Campbell with disciplinary charges setting out eight specifications of misconduct alleged to have occurred between May and August 1996. ALJ Fleischhacker, however, ruled that the agency’s delay in serving the charges until appeals related to the 1996 Article 78 action had been exhausted meant that they were filed too late.

Campbell contended that the statute of limitations in Section 75 began to run upon the commission of the alleged misconduct, was never tolled, and expired well before any charges were served. The Authority, on the other hand, argued that it was not until its effort to appeal the Appellate Division determination was denied by the Court of Appeals that it was obliged to serve charges.

Civil Service Law section 75(4) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, no removal or disciplinary proceeding shall be commenced more than eighteen months after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges . . ., provided, however, that such limitation shall not apply where the incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges, would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime.”*

Pointing out that all the Authority had to do “to toll the statute of limitations was to draft and serve the revised charges” in 1996, Judge Fleischhacker found that the Authority was time-barred from proceeding against Campbell.

Judge Fleischhacker said that a number of action could toll the running of the statute of limitations set out in Section 75, including:

1. An employee may be estopped to plead the Statute of Limitations where the employer was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action;”

2. Where the misconduct constitutes “a continuing violation;” or

3. The parties can agree to extend limitations periods [but a court cannot, although a court order staying the disciplinary action tolls the running of the statute of limitations].

In contrast, the withdrawal of charges filed against an individual does not toll the statute of limitations insofar as “refilling such charges” at a later date is concerned.

* The statute of limitations for State employees designated “managerial or confidential” within the meaning of the Taylor Law is one year except where the charges, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime, in which case the one-year limitation would not apply.

Injury at the worksite

Injury at the worksite

Crockett v Safir, 269 AD2 227

Donna Crockett, a New York City police officer, was injured while on duty. She was “brushing her teeth in the ladies’ room of a police building.” A mirror dislodged and struck her.

Crockett’s asked that her injury be designated as “line-of-duty,” thereby entitling her reimbursement for her hospital bills. Her request was denied. The Commissioner ruled that Crockett was not “actually employed in discharging the orders of a superior officer at the time of the accident,” as required by the statute.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, holding that his interpreting the statute to exclude personal hygiene not undertaken at the direction of a superior officer was not irrational. If, said the court, benefits were to be provided for any accidental injuries sustained while on duty by police officers, the Administrative Code would have so provided or at least used language similar to the “city-service” language used in Section 13-252 of the city’s Administrative Code concerning accident disability retirement.

.

Negotiating paid religious holidays

Negotiating paid religious holidays

Port Washington UFSD v Port Washington TA, App. Div., 268 AD2d 523; motion to appeal dismissed, 95 NY2d 761, motion to appeal on Constitutional grounds dismissed 95 NY2d 790

According to the Appellate Division, Second Department’s ruling in the Port Washington Union Free School District case, a Taylor Law contract provision allowing an individual to be absent on a religious holiday with pay without charging his or her absence to leave credits violates the First Amendment.

In the course of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law, Port Washington agreed to include a “Religious Holiday” provision in the agreement.*

The contract clause allowed a teacher to be absent with pay on “any of the religious holidays designated by the New York State Commissioner of Education” without charging his or her absence to leave credits. To receive this benefit the teacher had to submit a written request to absent himself or herself for the holiday.

In September 1997, however, the district advised teachers who had requested paid days off for religious observance that the district would not implement the Religious Holidays provision in the contract “because it was unconstitutional.”

The district said that if a teacher wished to be absent for a religious observance, he or she would be required to charge the absence to his or her appropriate leave credits or request to be placed on a leave without pay for the duration of the absence.

Six teachers and the Port Washington Teachers Association filed a grievance and demanded that the district’s alleged violation of the agreement be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the Taylor Law contract’s grievance procedure.

The district objected and asked a State Supreme Court judge to stay the arbitration proceeding pursuant to Section 7503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The district’s argument: the enforcement of the provision pursuant to an arbitration award would be unconstitutional.

The judge agreed with the district’s rational for refusing to implement the Religious Holidays provision -- the provision was unconstitutional -- and issued an order staying the arbitration. The teachers and the Association appealed.

The Appellate Division said that the first issue to be resolved in cases involving the granting of a stay of arbitration in a public sector dispute arising under a Taylor Law is whether the provision in question is, in fact, subject to arbitration. The court, referring to the Court of Appeals ruling in Matter of Blackburne, 87 NY2d 660, said:

If a statute, decisional law or public policy precludes the governmental employer and employee from referring the dispute to arbitration, then the answer to this inquiry is no and the claim is not arbitrable.

Citing Griffin v Coughlin, 88 NY2d 674, the Appellate Division pointed out that “[t]here is no firmer or more settled principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence than that prohibiting the use of the State’s power to force one to profess a religious belief.” It affirmed the lower court’s order staying the arbitration on the grounds that the contract provision violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

The Appellate Division’s rationale:

The Religious Holidays provision in the Taylor Law agreement between the district and the association “rewarded members of the Association who claimed to be religiously observant with more paid days off than those afforded to agnostics, atheists, and members who were less observant.”

In contrast to the type of provision included in the Port Washington contract, many Taylor Law collective bargaining agreements provide for absences with pay charged to “personal leave.”

Typically, such leave may be used for any “personal business” including the observation of religious holidays. Presumably such provisions would pass the Second Department’s Constitutional test as they neither favor the “religiously observant” nor penalize “agnostics, atheists, and members who were less observant.”

* The New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] has held that negotiating days off for religious observances was not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining [CSEA v Eastchester UFSD, 29 PERB 3041].
.

Disclosure of a public agency’s "policies, procedures, rules and regulations”

Disclosure of a public agency’s "policies, procedures, rules and regulations”

Sabilia v State of New York, 14 Misc.3d 1228(A)

Peter Sabilia and his wife, Stephanie, sued the State of New York after Peter was injured as a result of his being run over by a State motor vehicle sunbathing on the beach at Jones Beach State Park. The vehicle, a pick-up truck, was being driven by John J. Fitzwilliam, an employee of the New York State Park Police. Fitzwilliam allegedly drove over Sabilia while, according to Fitzwilliam, he was attempting to avoid a "large hole" during a routine beach patrol.

In the course of this litigation before Court of Claims Judge Milano, the Sabilias asked for copies of “policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and training manuals" concerning driving a vehicle on the beach that were applicable at the time. Judge Milano noted that:

“Importantly, the claimants' demand specifically stated that they did not seek "any police strategies regarding pursuit techniques/strategies of any kind whatsoever and is limited to those rules . . . dealing with driving on the beach (when not in pursuit)."

The State’s response:

"We will not be providing any training manuals, regulations, policies, procedures or other internal memorandums that pertain to driving a vehicle on the beach." The reasons for this advanced by the State: “its own policies and procedures have ‘little relevance to the legal standard of care’ and that the ‘standard of care in the operation of a police vehicle is controlled by the reckless disregard standard as defined in [Vehicle and Traffic Law] §1104(e) and relevant case law’"

The State also argued that materials requested by the Sailias are "privileged and confidential" and might have "a detrimental impact on the safety and security of the various officers, as well as the general public" and that the “disclosure of its policy as to non-emergency, routine operation of a pick-up truck on the beach will "limit the ability [of the officers] to successfully perform their duties and self evaluation and analysis."

Noting that the disclosure provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rules are to be liberally construed the court said that "The party seeking to prevent disclosure has a heavy burden, especially where the materials sought are relevant” and that “It is the party opposing discovery who has the burden to prove that the particular items sought are exempt or immune from disclosure.”

Concluding that the State’s internally adopted standard of care, if any, for the routine, non-emergency operation of a motor vehicle on the beach, is relevant, Judge Milano said that a "failure to abide by its own rule is some evidence of negligence."*

As the State’s reliance on “the recklessness standard of care” set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law §1104 (e), Judge Milano said that the Sailias “correctly state that the record is devoid of any evidence that Fitzwilliam was ‘involved in an emergency operation,’ which is a prerequisite for the statute to apply.”

Holding that “The conclusory assertions of privilege and confidentiality regarding [State’s] policy as to non-emergency, routine operation of a pick-up truck on the beach, set forth in the affirmation of [State’s] attorney, are unpersuasive and that the State failed to sustain its burden of showing that the disclosure of the requested materials would pose any danger to park police officers or the public,” Judge Milano ordered the State to provide the requested "policies, procedures, rules, regulations and/or training manuals regarding driving a vehicle on the beach which were applicable at the time" to the Court for an in camera** inspection by the court.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/disclosing-certain-policies-procedures.html

  

*  Citing Sherman v Robinson, 80 NY2d 483, Judge Milano said that the "[v]iolation of a company's internal rules is not negligence in and of itself, and where such rules require a standard that transcends reasonable care, breach cannot be considered evidence of negligence."

**  From the Latin “in chambers.” A review conducted by a judge in a court closed to the public or in the judge’s chambers rather than in open court.
,

Joint employers

Joint employers

Putnam County Sheriff’s OMA v Putnam County, 33 PERB 3001

Who is the employer of the personnel serving with the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department? Putnam County contended that the county is the sole employer of Sheriff’s Department personnel while the Sheriff argued that he and the county were “joint employers” of these employees.

The issue arose when the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office Managers Association [OMA] filed a petition seeking certification as the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit consisting of lieutenants, captains and a chief criminal investigator employed by the “Office of the Sheriff.”

The county filed a response claiming that it was the sole employer of these employees and that they were managerial employees and thus not entitled to representation rights under the Taylor Law.

The sheriff also filed an answer in which he said that he and the county were “joint employers” of these employees and that he believed that certifying OMA to represent a negotiating unit consisting of these employees was appropriate.

Reversing a determination by its administrative law judge [ALJ], PERB ruled that the sheriff and the county were “joint employers” for the purposes of the Taylor Law.

PERB’s rationale: holding that the county was the sole employer would “relieve elected sheriffs of their right and duty to negotiate under the Act and it could elicit petitions to consolidate some or all of the titles in existing sheriffs department units with county-wide units, often the very units from which they were fragmented in the first place.”

This is not a new concept: in County of Ulster v Ulster County Sheriff, 3 PERB 3032, a case decided in 1970, PERB ruled that the county and the sheriff were joint employers and separate bargaining units for the sheriff’s department were appropriate.

What distinguishes the Putnam County sheriffs from other Putnam county governmental unit heads? The sheriff is an elected official and can only be removed by the Governor while other county unit heads serve at the pleasure of the county executive.

In contrast to the status of an elective sheriff, whom PERB characterized as an “executive officer,” PERB said that an “appointed sheriff” is “essentially a department head.

Accordingly, the elected sheriff has independent status as a joint employer. PERB had addressed this difference in Nassau County v Nassau County Sheriff, 25 PERB 3036. This is consistent with the general rule that an appointing authority’s power to appoint implies the power to remove, while the elective sheriff is a Constitutional office and subject to different removal procedures.

Turning to the ALJ’s ruling that “the at-issue employees” are not managerial, PERB said that the employees are “high-level supervisors akin to the clerks of the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Divisions, First and Second Departments. PERB concluded that despite their role in personnel and policymaking determinations, the clerks were neither managerial nor confidential employees.

Out of title work and position classification determinations

Out of title work and position classification determinations

Curtiss v Angello, 269 AD2d 675

The Appellate Division recently considered a number of issues involving the classification and allocation of positions in the public service.

In Curtiss, the Appellate Division, Third Department addressed a rather unusual situation: an administrator’s reliance on new, but not yet official, job specifications rather than official but obsolete job descriptions in resolving an “out-of-title” work grievance.

John F. Curtiss, a Fish and Wildlife Technician II employed by the State Department of Environmental Conservation, filed a grievance claiming that he was working “out of title.”

Although Environmental Conservation sustained the grievance, the then State Director of the Governor’s Office Employee Relations [OER], Linda Angello, reversed the agency’s determination and denied Curtiss’ grievance. Curtiss sued, challenging Angello’s decision on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious.

Essentially, Curtiss wanted to be reclassified to Fish and Wildlife Technician III. Angello, in rejecting the grievance, determined that the duties of a Fish and Wildlife Technician III included region-wide coordination of programs and direct supervision of subordinate staff, duties that Curtiss did not perform.” Angello’s findings, however, were based on new, “tentative specifications” for the two positions rather than the then current “official” job descriptions for the two titles.

The Appellate Division sustained Angello’s determination, noting that the “relevant standard of review is whether the record as a whole provides a rational basis for the determination denying [Curtiss’] grievance.

Curtiss argued that Angello’s determination was arbitrary because it was not based exclusively on the “official” job classification specifications promulgated by the State’s Division of Classification and Compensation in effect when his grievance was actually filed.

Classification and Compensation’s “official” specifications referred to by Curtiss had been issued in 1970. Angello unquestionably had considered new and “tentative” job descriptions for the Fish and Wildlife Technician II and Fish and Wildlife Technician III titles in making her determination.

These “tentative” job descriptions for the two titles had been prepared by the State Department of Civil Service following its review of the duties being performed by incumbents of a number of positions in Environmental Conservation.

Civil Service found that the duties of the incumbents of the various titles in Environmental Conservation that it had reviewed “had changed over time, rendering the 1970 specifications obsolete.” In March 1998, after Curtiss had filed his grievance, new job descriptions for the Fish and Wildlife Technician II and III titles were promulgated and the positions were reallocated to higher salary grades.

The court held that it was neither arbitrary nor irrational for Angello to consider the results of the job audits prepared by Civil Service as they “disclosed the actual duties being performed by incumbents.”

As to title held by Curtiss in particular, the Appellate Division said that “in the 1970 specifications the principal distinction between the two titles was the greater supervisory and administrative responsibility of the higher grade title.” The audits, said the court, revealed that “although the duties of the incumbents had changed, the principal distinction continued to be the greater supervisory and administrative responsibility of the higher grade title.”

Curtiss had cited Rausch v Pellegrini, 237 AD2d 771, in support of his “out of title” work argument. The Appellate Division said that Rausch was not relevant in this case, noting that unlike Rausch, Curtiss “was not obligated to perform the duties of his supervisor.”

Further, said the court, the fact that there is some overlap of the duties performed by Curtiss and those performed by a Fish and Wildlife Technician III does not justify sustaining his grievance.

Finding that the record as a whole provides a rational basis for Angello’s conclusion that Curtiss was not performing out-of-title work, the Appellate Division sustained the lower courts dismissal of his petition.

Readers may have noted another interesting aspect of this case -- Curtiss had “won” his grievance at the departmental level. As the “employer” makes the determination in pre-arbitration steps of the grievance procedure, typically any appeal is filed by the grievant or his or her representative.

May the employer, in effect, “appeal” a grievance determination by an official at an earlier step in the grievance procedure and then reverse the earlier “lower level” grievance ruling favorable to the employee made by management?

This was the significant issue addressed in Weed v Orange County, a case decided by the Appellate Division in the early 1990’s.

Weed was injured on the job. The Orange County Commissioner of Personnel rejected Weed’s application for a one-year leave of absence with full pay. Weed claimed he was entitled to such leave under the terms of “Article 20” of the then controlling Taylor Law agreement.

After the Commissioner disapproved his application, Weed filed a “Step One” grievance with his immediate supervisor in accordance with the terms of the grievance procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement. The supervisor sustained the grievance. The Commissioner of Personnel, however, refused to implement the supervisor’s ruling.

Weed sued, only to have the Appellate Division dismiss his complaint. The court said that under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, “the Commissioner of Personnel is given sole discretion in granting paid leave.” According to the opinion, there was no evidence that the parties to the agreement “intended to limit the discretion of the Commissioner of Personnel.”

The Appellate Division said that in the absence of any such evidence, there was no rational basis for the supervisor’s “construing Article 20 as a mandatory requirement [to grant paid leave to Weed] on the part of the County.”

The bottom line: the County was not required to comply with the determination by Weed’s supervisor, who had initially sustained Weed’s grievance.

Finally, the decision reports that the two titles in question were “reallocated to a higher grade and, presumably, the incumbents were entitled to have their salaries adjusted accordingly. What happens if the titles are reallocated to a lower grade?

Typically, the permanent incumbents serving in the positions reallocated to a lower salary grade would be “grand fathered” to protect their salaries.* Any future salary increases would be subject to the maximum of the lower salary grade to which the titles were reallocated. The grand fathering of salaries to protect the income of incumbents of positions that have been reallocated to a lower salary grade is illustrated by the decision in the New York State Court Clerks Association case.

The Office of Court Administration [OCA] had decided that the salary grade of existing trial court clerk titles should remain unchanged, based upon “an extensive review of the trial and appellate-level court clerk titles for the purpose of establishing joint salary scales.” OCA also decided that some court clerk positions should be reallocated to a lower salary grade.

OCA protected the salaries of the permanent employees serving in appellate court clerk titles whose positions had been reallocated to a lower salary grade by “grand fathering” their salaries. The Appellate Division said that “grand fathering permanent incumbents in the context of a downward reclassification of their titles is an accepted practice that effectuates the mandate of Civil Service Law Section 121(2)(a)....”

Section 121(2)(a) provides that “the annual salary of any position ..., which is classified or reclassified, or which is allocated or reallocated to a salary grade pursuant to the provisions of this article shall not be reduced for the then permanent incumbent by reason of any provision of this article so long as such position is held by the then permanent incumbent”

The court said that “contrary to petitioner’s contention,” although grand fathering, results in some “transitional salary inequities,” it constitutes “a rationally justifiable means of facilitating the orderly implementation of [OCA’s] Classification Plan”. Accordingly, the Appellate Division, citing the Court of Appeals ruling in Tolub v Evans, 58 NY2d 1, held that OCA’s action “does not offend due process,” because in matters concerning the State’s budget, “equal protection does not require that all classifications be made with mathematical precision.”

Finally, the court said that “[a]dministrative determinations concerning position classifications ... will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that they are wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis”, citing Cove v Sise, 71 NY2d 910, 912.

* In such cases the position is typically “red-lined” or “earmarked” for allocation upon its becoming vacant.
.

E-mails between government workers are public documents

E-mails between government workers are public documents

Cowles Publishing Co. v Kootenai County Board of Supervisors, 2007 Opinion No. 74

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that e-mail correspondence between government employees is public record. The e-mail correspondence at issue was between a supervisor and a subordinate, both of whom were employees of the county.

Essentially, the court held that “The emails exchanged by public employees are public records and are not exempt from disclosure under either [Idaho] statutory exemptions or constitutional law.”

The full text of the ruling is posted at:

http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/05/idaho-supreme-court-e-mails-between.html