Employee terminated following loss of a license required to perform the duties of the position

Employee terminated following loss of a license required to perform the duties of the position
Lytle v U.S. Postal Service, 257 AD2d 779

One of the conditions of Christopher M. Lytle’s employment by the United States Postal Service was that he posses a valid driver’s license so that he could perform his postal duties.

Lytle was arrested for driving while intoxicated and his license was suspended. As he could not lawfully drive a motor vehicle, he was terminated from his position. Finding that he was “terminated due to misconduct,” the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denied his application for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Appellate Division sustained the board’s ruling, holding that since Lytle “engaged in a voluntary act which violated a reasonable condition of his employment, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision that [Lytle’s] behavior constituted disqualifying misconduct.”
NYPPL

Any expansion of benefits available pursuant to §§207-a and 207-c must be expressly provided for in a collective bargaining agreement

Any expansion of benefits available pursuant to §§207-a and 207-c must be expressly provided for in a collective bargaining agreement
Matter of Town of Tuxedo v Town of Tuxedo Police Benevolent Assn., 2010 NY Slip Op 08122, decided on November 9, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department

On December 4, 2004, Town of Tuxedo Police Officer John Tamburello was injured in the line of duty. He never returned to work and was awarded a disability retirement on or about December 23, 2008.

In March 2009 the Tuxedo Park PBA filed a grievance alleging that Tamburello had not been paid for all of his unused leave as mandated by the collective bargaining agreement [CBA]. According to the PBA, leave time continued to accrue during the four-year period that Tamburello was receiving benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c.

When it demanded that the question be submitted to arbitration, Tuxedo Park filed a petition pursuant to Article 75 seeking a permanent stay of arbitration.

Ultimately the Appellate Division ruled that “benefits provided to a police officer pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c, like the benefits provided to a firefighter pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a, are exclusive, and a collective bargaining agreement will not be construed to implicitly expand such benefits.”*

“Unless,” said the court, “a collective bargaining agreement expressly provides for compensation rights to disabled officers in addition to those provided by General Municipal Law § 207-c, there is no entitlement to such additional compensation,” citing Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO v City of Cohoes, 94 NY2d 686.

As the Appellate Division found that the controlling CBA “did not contain any language expressly providing that leave time would accrue during the period that a disabled officer receives General Municipal Law §207-c benefits, or that a disabled officer would be paid for such leave time upon retirement,”. Supreme Court should have granted the petition in Proceeding No. 2 to permanently stay arbitration.

Comment: The Plattsburgh case [Plattsburgh v Plattsburgh Police Officers Union, 250 AD2d 327, leave to appeal denied: 93 NY2d 807], illustrates this. In Plattsburgh the issue before the court, and later the arbitrator, involved the nature of the benefit to be provided itself.

The Taylor Law agreement between Plattsburgh and the police officer’s union included language that provided that police officers who retired as a result of a job-related disability were to receive Section 207-a benefits if the disability was incurred in the line of duty.

Section 207-a provides a significantly greater disability payment benefit than that available under Section 207-c.

Section 207-a requires the appointing authority to supplement the retired disabled firefighter’s disability retirement benefit so as to provide the individual with the equivalent of full salary until his or her mandatory age of retirement.

Further, this Section 207-a supplement is to be periodically adjusted to reflect negotiated salary increases. Section 207-c does not provide any parallel supplementary benefit.

Three disabled police officers retired after suffering service-connected disabilities. They asked Plattsburgh to pay them the difference between their respective disability retirement allowances and their respective full-salary, i.e., a Section 207-a level of benefits.

Their argument was simple: under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement they were entitled to receive benefits in accordance with Section 207-a rather than Section 207-c.

Plattsburgh refused and the union filed contract violation grievances. When the union demanded that the grievances be submitted to arbitration, Plattsburgh resisted. In an effort to obtain a stay of the arbitration, Plattsburgh argued that the disputed provision:

1. Had been included in the contract by mistake and

2. The benefits to be provided disabled police officers are limited to those set out in Section 207-c.

The Appellate Division held that the mistake issue, as well as the meaning and impact of the provision modifying the statutory Section 207-c benefits as set out in the agreement, was for the arbitrator to resolve and denied Plattsburgh’s application to stay arbitration.

Of greater potential significance, the Appellate Division said that agreements providing for benefits different that those provided by Section 207-c were not statutorily prohibited since they do not affect the benefit the individual would receive from the retirement system.

In other words, in the opinion of the Appellate Division, Third Department, this is not a prohibited subject of collective bargaining, a position that is important when considering Taylor Law preparing and responding to negotiation demands related to Section 207-a and Section 207-c.

As to the validity of the contract provisions in the Plattsburgh agreement, ultimately an arbitrator ruled that the provision was the result of good faith bargaining, rejecting Plattsburgh’s representations that it was included by mistake.

Accordingly, Plattsburgh police officers retiring for work-connected disabilities during the life of the agreement were entitle to Section 207-a type benefits.

* General Municipal Law Section 207-a applies exclusively to firefighters; Section 207-c exclusively covers law enforcement personnel.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_08122.htm

===================================

For information about PELP's e-book Disability Retirement and General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/c go to: http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html

===================================
NYPPL

Disciplinary suspension without pay tolled while individual incarcerated

Disciplinary suspension without pay tolled while individual incarcerated
Manning v Warsaw CSD, CEd 14071

The Warsaw Central School District served disciplinary charges against a tenured teacher, William Manning, Jr., related to his alleged operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

Following a disciplinary hearing and an appeal, on November 22, 1994 former Commission of Education Sobol issued a decision and imposed a penalty of suspension without pay for two years. The decision was sustained by a State Supreme Court justice [Manning v Sobol, August 7, 1995, not officially reported].

Manning, however, was incarcerated in the Wyoming County jail on July 19, 1994. Because he was “unavailable” to work, the district changed his pay status from suspension with pay pending resolution of the Section 3020-a action to suspension without pay effective July 19, 1994.

Released from prison and claiming that his two-year suspension without pay commenced on November 22, 1994, Manning advised the district that he intended to return to work on November 22, 1996. The District said that the two-year suspension period commenced on March 21, 1995, when he was released from prison and therefore he could not return to work earlier than March 21, 1997. Manning appealed.

Commissioner of Education Richard P. Mills said that the two-year suspension imposed by former Commissioner Sobol commenced when Manning was released from incarceration since allowing the suspension to run concurrently with his incarceration “nullifies a portion of the suspension, since [Manning] could not work during that period in any event.”

The Commissioner rejected Manning’s claim that he was entitled to back salary from November 22, 1996, holding that to do so would abrogate the degree of discipline deemed appropriate by former Commissioner Sobol.
NYPPL

Payment for vacation credits upon resignation

Payment for vacation credits upon resignation
Karp v North Country Community College, 258 AD2d 775

After 15 years of service, Robert Karp resigned from his position with the North Country Community College in 1997. When the college refused to pay him for accrued vacation credits he claimed he accrued between 1982 and 1985, he sued.

Although Karp admitted that the college lacked express authority to pay him for his unused vacation time, he nevertheless claimed that he was entitled to such payments because the college had paid other employees for unused vacation time in the past. Karp argued that this meant that the college was obligated to pay him for such credits as well.

Karp claimed that in 1986 two employees received compensation for their unused vacation time when they resigned. He also referred to a 1986 memorandum written by respondent’s then-Dean of Administration recognizing that the school’s policy respecting unused vacation time needed clarification and that, in the interim, respondent would honor its past practice for vacation time accrued up until August 31, 1985.

Supreme Court said that if not expressly authorized by statute, local law, resolution or pursuant to a contract term, a public employee may not be paid for unused vacation time, citing General Municipal Law Section 92. The court noted that payments made without such authority are deemed public gifts, prohibited by Article VIII, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution.

The Appellate Division agreed, commenting that “the mere fact that [the college] despite lacking authority to do so, may have on prior occasions compensated employees for unused vacation time does not validate [Karp’s] claim. Express authorization being required, prior conduct cannot satisfy the express statutory authorization needed to form a basis for recovery against a public body.”

Also noted was the fact that in 1986 the college advised Karp that he should develop a plan to use any remaining vacation time during that academic year.
NYPPL

Educator terminated before the end of the probationary period

Educator terminated before the end of the probationary period
Strax v Rockland County BOCES, 257 AD2d 578

The Rockland County Board of Cooperative Educational Services dismissed Carol Strax, a probationary administrative assistant, from her position. Strax sued, seeking a court order reinstating her to the position.

The Appellate Division rejected her appeal, commenting that “it is well established that a board of education has an unfettered right to terminate the employment of a teacher or administrator during his or her probationary period, without a hearing, unless that person establishes that his or her employment was terminated for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of a statutory proscription.”

According to the ruling, Strax did not allege that the BOCES had terminated her probationary employment for a constitutionally impermissible reason nor did she demonstrate that it failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Education Law Section 3031 or otherwise acted in violation of a statutory proscription.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that under the circumstances the Supreme Court properly ruled that Strax’s termination was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
NYPPL

Employee terminated after refusing to work overtime

Employee terminated after refusing to work overtime
Mack v Comm. of Labor, 257 AD2d 828

One of the requirements of toll collector Tijuana R. Mack’s employment was that she occasionally was needed to work overtime before or after her regular shift. However, she declined to accept a number of overtime assignments and was given a number of written warnings.

After she once again refused to accept an overtime assignment, she was discharged. When she applied for unemployment insurance, her claim was rejected on the grounds that her refusing the overtime assignment constituted disqualifying misconduct.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s determination, holding that “an employee’s refusal to accept reasonable overtime work assignments when he or she has agreed to do so at the time of hiring can constitute disqualifying misconduct” for the purposes of qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits.
NYPPL

Unemployment insurance benefit adjusted to reflect retirement allowance

Unemployment insurance benefit adjusted to reflect retirement allowance
Licciardello v Comm. of Labor, 255 AD2d 850

Marie Licciardello left her teaching position with the City of New York. She later began to receive payments from her pension fund at the rate of $250 per week. In addition, Licciardello was receiving unemployment insurance benefits at the rate of $300 per week.

However, Section 600.7 of the Labor Law provides that an unemployment insurance claimant’s benefit rate is to be reduced in cases where the employer has contributed to the employee’s pension fund.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board held that Licciardello’s unemployment benefit rate was subject to reductions by the amount of 50% of her pension payments, reflecting her employer’s contribution of over 50% of the funding of her pension plan. In addition, the board said that Licciardello was liable for, and had to repay, $3,250 for the overpayment of benefits.

The board determined that the actuarial value of Licciardello’s pension was $138,000 and that her contributions were $33,000, about a quarter of the actuarial value of the pension.

The Appellate Division said that this constituted substantial evidence supporting the board’s ruling that “her employer contributed over half of the actuarial value of [Licciardello’s] pension, thereby triggering the statutory reduction in benefits imposed by the Board.”
NYPPL

Determining if a demand for arbitration was timely filed

Determining if a demand for arbitration was timely filed
Matter of Town of N. Hempstead v Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 08121, decided on November 9, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department

Two days after the Town of North Hempstead terminated the employment of an employee CSEA advised the Town that it intended to proceed to arbitration. Two months after the employee’s date of dismissal CSEA submitted a demand for arbitration to the American Arbitration Association [AAA] challenging the employee’s dismissal.

North Hampstead filed an Article 75 petition to stay the arbitration contending that under the parties' collective bargaining agreement as well as a subsequent stipulation entered into between the parties, the demand for arbitration to the AAA had to be made within 10 days after the termination of the employee's employment.* The Town’s theory: CSEA’s demand for arbitration was untimely and it was thus entitled to a permanent stay of arbitration.

Although Supreme Court granted the Town’s petition, holding that "[t]here is no precedent for finding that notice to the [Town] of an intent to arbitrate also constitutes timely notice to the AAA as required by the [2008 stipulation],” the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s decision.

In this instance, said the court, the relevant provisions state that "[w]ithin ten (10) days after . . . discharge . . . only the Union may proceed to Disciplinary Arbitration by written notification to . . . the Town Attorney, and in accordance with the rules and requirements of the AAA as they relate to Labor Arbitration."** This language, said the Appellate Division, “does not require that a demand for arbitration be made to the AAA within that 10-day period.” It simply requires that the Town be notified of the union’s intent within such period.

The court explained that the Stipulation, requiring that a demand for arbitration be made to the AAA within 10 days, refers only to those situations where there has been a Step 1 disciplinary procedure. Here there was “no such Step 1 procedure” making the 10-day rule for making a demand for arbitration to the AAA inapplicable.

Finally, said the court, “to the extent that the subject language governing the time to demand arbitration may be ambiguous, it should be resolved in favor of the employee's right to proceed to arbitration.”

* The Appellate Division noted that the Stipulation specifically provides that the Agreement's time "deadlines . . . are conditions precedent to arbitration." Rejecting CSEA argument that the issue of whether its demand for arbitration was timely made to AAA was for the arbitrator to determine, the court, citing Matter of All Metro Health Care Serv., Inc. v Edwards, 57 AD3d 892, ruled that a court, rather than an arbitrator, was to decide the matter.

** AAA rules do not impose any time limits for filing a demand for arbitration

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_08121.htm
NYPP:

Hearsay evidence may be the basis for an administrative disciplinary determination

Hearsay evidence may be the basis for an administrative disciplinary determination
Matter of Hughes v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., Off. of Ct. Admin., 2010 NY Slip Op 07932, Decided on November 3, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department

Thomas Hughes, an Office of Court Administration [OCA] court officer, was served with disciplinary charges alleging, among other offenses, failing to keep his uniform in proper condition, failing to keep his weapon properly loaded, and keeping an impermissible metal-jacketed round in his weapon.

The disciplinary hearing officer found that Hughes was guilty of “engaging in acts of misconduct and incompetency prejudicial to the good order and efficiency of the New York State Unified Court System and adversely reflecting on his fitness to continue as a court office.” OCA accepted the hearing officer’s recommendation that Hughes be dismissed from his position.

Hughes filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order vacating OCA’s decision to terminate him.

The Appellate Division dismissed Hughes petition noting that “appellate review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence.” In this instance, said the court, the hearing officer’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.*

Addressing another issue concerning the evidence presented in the course of the disciplinary hearing, the Appellate Division commented that “Hearsay evidence may be the basis for an administrative determination,” citing Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741.

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the court said that “termination of employment was not so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock the conscience.”

* Substantial evidence has been defined as "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact."

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_07932.htm
NYPPL

Termination during probation

Termination during probation
Rigney v Nassau Co. CSC, NYS Supreme Court, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

The Rigney decision illustrates that individuals who complain that their employer acted in bad faith in terminating them prior to the end of their probationary periods must demonstrate that their probationary performance was otherwise satisfactory in order to prevail.

Rigney, a former Nassau County probationary police officer, complained that her supervisor, Sergeant Daniel P. Flanagan, arbitrarily decided that she would not successfully complete her training at the Police Academy. According to her complaint, Sergeant Flanagan told Rigney “that the decision was already made and that it was only a matter of time before she was terminated.”

Ultimately the Academy’s Deputy Inspector, George Gudmundsen, recommended that Rigney be terminated because she had not maintained a 75 percent average, which constituted “unsatisfactory performance during her probationary period including a failure to satisfy the minimum academic criteria” The report also said that Rigney “repeatedly argues with Academy staff members”; “failed simulations training”; and “repeatedly failed to address Academy staff members in [the] prescribed manner.”

Rigney sued, seeking a court order annulling her dismissal. She contended that her termination was made in bad faith because “Sergeant Flanagan arbitrarily determined that she would be terminated notwithstanding [her attaining] a passing (i.e., 75 percent or higher average) grade.”

State Supreme Court Justice McCaffrey pointed out that a probationary employee, unlike a tenured public employee, has no property rights in the position and can be discharged without a hearing and without a stated specific reason, provided that: (1) the employee has completed the minimum but not yet served the maximum period of probation, (2) the discharge is in good faith, and (3) the action is not in violation of constitutional, statutory, or decisional law. [See McKee v. Jackson, 152 AD2d 547].

Justice McCaffrey dismissed Rigney’s petition, commenting that even assuming that Nassau County had predetermined that Rigney was to be terminated irrespective of her final grade, her unilateral failure to acquire the minimum passing average (75 percent) provided an independent lawful predicate for terminating her employment.

Significantly, the employee has the burden of proof in actions challenging his or her dismissal during the probationary period. As the Appellate Division recently stated in dismissing an appeal filed by a former probationer at the Town of Brookhaven, the employee has a burden to present “legal and competent evidence to show a deprivation of his rights, bad faith, or other arbitrary action constituting an abuse of discretion” by the employer [Iannuzzi v Town of Brookhaven, 258 AD2d 651].

In Iannuzzi’s case, the Appellate Division said that Iannuzzi’s termination “was based upon his unsatisfactory performance and was not arbitrary and capricious, but had a rational basis and was carried out in good faith.”
NYPPL