Termination by operation of law

Termination by operation of law
Bowman v Kerik, 271 AD2d 225

Section 30.1(e) of the Public Officers Law provides that a public office becomes vacant upon the conviction of the incumbent of a felony, or a crime involving a violation of the individual’s oath of office. The significance of this provision is that no pre-termination hearing that may otherwise be viewed as mandated by law such as the proceeding set out in Section 75 of the Civil Service Law or a Taylor Law disciplinary grievance procedure is required to effect the termination.

In Bowman, Section 30.1(e) was the basis for the court’s sustaining the termination of several New York City correction officers without a hearing. As the Appellate Division noted, Section 30.1(e) is a self-executing statute and no pretermination hearing was required.

Bowman and other correction officers had challenged their dismissal without notice and hearing, claiming they were entitled to such a due process hearing. The corrections officers pled guilty to an intent to evade any tax imposed under [an] income or earnings tax statute....*

The Appellate Division found that their public offices were vacated automatically on conviction by operation of law because of the misdemeanors to which they had pleaded guilty. As noted in Kelly v Levin, 440 NY2d 424, even if these individuals were given a due process hearing, the only penalty that could be imposed by an appointing authority or hearing officer was dismissal.

* For the purposes of 30(1)(e), a plea of guilty is the equivalent of a conviction.
.

Challenging administrative decisions

Challenging administrative decisions
Gomez v Safir, 271 AD2d 246

The Gomez case points out a procedural trap that an individual may encounter in the event he or she delays challenging an administrative decision. In this instance the case involved a delay by a police officer in contesting an administrative decision denying his request to engage in off-duty employment.*

There two basis issues involved in this case:

1. Did a pending grievance concerning the denial of his administrative application for off-duty employment approval toll the statute of limitations for filing an Article 78 petition challenging the administrative disapproval action? and

2. Was the determination of the commissioner in denying Gomez’s request reasonable?

New York City police officer Felipe Gomez wanted to be a professional boxer. When his administrative request to work off-duty in pursuit of a boxing career was disapproved, he appealed the administrative determination to the commissioner. He also filed a contract grievance protesting the denial of his request for permission to engage in off-duty employment as a professional boxer.

First, the commissioner denied Gomez’s administrative appeal concerning permission to participate in boxing while off-duty. Gomez did not immediately challenge the commissioner’s administrative decision but decided to wait for commissioner’s decision concerning his grievance.
.
The commissioner also denied Gomez’s grievance, ruling that Gomez’s complaint did not involve a contractual right subject to the grievance process; Gomez then initiated an Article 78 action seeking a court order vacating the commissioner’s administrative decision.

However, by the time the commissioner issued the grievance ruling more than four months had passed by since the commissioner had issued his administrative ruling on Gomez’s administrative appeal. As a result the first issue to be resolved by the court was a procedural one -- was Gomez’s Article 78 petition appealing the commissioner’s administrative ruling timely; i.e., was it filed within four months of the final administrative determination?

State Supreme Court Judge William McCooe said it was untimely and dismissed Gomez’s petition. Why? Because, said the court, the commissioner’s administrative decision became final and binding on Gomez when he was told that the commissioner had denied his administrative appeal. Accordingly, the four-month statute of limitations for bringing an Article 78 action commenced to run at that time.

The critical element in resolving the timeliness issue: Judge McCooe said that Gomez’s attempt to resort to contractual grievance procedures did not toll the four-month limitations period, citing Lubin v Board of Education, 60 NY2d 974.

The lesson here: delays in filing an Article 78 petition because the employee is awaiting the resolution of a grievance or arbitration concerning the same issue is fatal as the Gomez decision demonstrates.

Similarly, in Roper v NYC Department of Citywide Administration, Appellate Division, Third Department, 271 AD2d 737, the court sustained the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s dismissed Clyde Roper’s appeal of the denial of his unemployment insurance claim as untimely. Clyde testified that he received the ALJ’s decision but did not appeal based upon his attorney’s advice to wait for a pending arbitration decision. The court sustained the board’s conclusion that Clyde failed to comply with the 20-day filing requirement of Section 621(1) of the Labor Law and dismissed his appeal.

Although the Appellate Division dismissed Gomez’s complaint for technical reasons, it also elected to comment on the merits of his claim. The court pointed out that although Section 208-d of the General Municipal Law allows a police officer to accept off-duty employment, such employment must not affect his physical condition to the extent that it impairs his ability to efficiently perform [his or her regular] duties.

The court’s conclusion as to merits of Gomez’s appeal: given this qualification, it cannot be said that the blanket prohibition against professional boxing apparently applied here is so lacking in reason as to be arbitrary.

* A number of law enforcement agencies have adopted a policy setting the nature of off-duty employment that its officers may accept and generally require the officers to obtain prior approval before accepting off-duty employment. In some instances, the department’s off-duty work policy has been incorporated in an agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law. An employer’s restriction on employee’s use of their nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations and the union’s acquiescence to limitations concerning off-duty work does not constitute a waiver of the right to bargain subsequent prohibition [see Sheriff’s Association and Ulster Co. Sheriff, 27 PERB 3028].
.

Seasonal employees not entitled to a §75 hearing having access to an Article 78 hearing satisfies constitutional due process requirements

Seasonal employees not entitled to a §75 hearing having access to an Article 78 hearing satisfies constitutional due process requirements
Edward Carter, et al v Incorporated Village Of Ocean Beach, USCA, Second Circuit 10-0740-cv*

Carter and his co-plaintiffs [hereinafter "Carter"] sued the Village and certain of its officials, alleging that they were unlawfully terminated from their respective seasonal police officer positions. They also alleged that their termination was in retaliation for reporting misconduct within the department in violation of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and that certain of the defendants made “derogatory statements” about them.

The federal district court ruled that Carter’s claims failed as a matter of law, concluding that Carter did not engage in “constitutionally protected speech” and thus could not establish First Amendment claims. The court said that “even if [Carter's] factual claims were credited in full, they established only that [Carter] spoke “pursuant to their official duties” and thus “not . . . as citizens for First Amendment purposes.”

The district court also ruled that Carter had not suffered a deprivation of either a protected liberty or property interest.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Carter’s allegations establish no more than that [the plaintiffs] reported what they believed to be misconduct by a supervisor up the chain of command—misconduct they knew of only by virtue of their jobs as police officers and which they reported as “part-and-parcel of [their] concerns about [their] ability to properly execute [their] duties.”

Speech, said the court, “that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities” is made “pursuant to” that employee’s “official duties.” Accordingly, the Circuit Court concluded, Carter was not engaging in constitutionally protected speech at any relevant time and cannot make out a First Amendment claim.

As to Carter’s claim that he was deprived of a protected property interest without due process of law, the Circuit Court of Appeals said that “To state a claim for deprivation of property without due process of law, a plaintiff must, as a preliminary matter, ‘identify a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause,’” citing Harrington v County of Suffolk, 607 F.3d 31.

However, to demonstrate a property interest in public employment, the plaintiff must have “more than a unilateral expectation of” continued or future employment but instead “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”

Carter, said the court, established no such “claim of entitlement” in that the record establishes that all of the plaintiffs in this action were all at-will, part-time, seasonal employees who had no contractual or other basis for asserting any “entitlement” to continued or future employment.

Carter had also contended that he was entitled to a pretermination hearing in accordance with Civil Service Law §75(1)(c). However, said the court, only certain individuals who have “completed at least five years of continuous service” are entitled to such administrative due process by operation of law. In this instance, said the Circuit Court, the district court had determined that no plaintiff was employed “continuously” for a five year period, and, accordingly, that §75(1)(c) provides no support for plaintiffs’ claims.”

Finally, as to Carter’s allegations of a so-called “stigma plus” deprivation of constitutionally protected right, stigma plus’ refers to a claim brought for injury to one’s reputation (the stigma) coupled with the "deprivation of some ‘tangible interest’ or property right (the plus), without adequate process."

The Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’ holding that even assuming a “deprivation” occurred in this instance – "that is, assuming plaintiffs could establish the 'stigma' and the 'plus' – the claims would nonetheless fail because plaintiffs were afforded 'adequate process' in the form of a post-deprivation Article 78 hearing in state court."

The Circuit Court explained that “where, as here, plaintiffs are ‘at will’ government employees raising stigma-plus claims, our law makes clear that 'due process does not require a pre-termination hearing,' and access to post-termination process, such as an Article 78 hearing, is sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements."

* N.B. This ruling is a Summary Order. Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/596b4436-f8b9-4643-82a9-59e7edb21841/3/doc/10-0740_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/596b4436-f8b9-4643-82a9-59e7edb21841/3/hilite/
.

Discipinary charges filed against employee for off-duty misconduct

Discipinary charges filed against employee for off-duty misconduct
Cannata v Safir, 269 AD2d 327

The Appellate Division, First Department did not have any difficulty in sustaining the decision of the Police Commissioner to dismiss New York City police officer Michael Cannata based on his finding that Cannata, while off-duty had:

1. Refused to move his illegally parked car when asked to do so by a Yonkers police officer;

2. Acted in a rude and aggressive manner, making racial remarks about the police officer; and

3. Lied about his conduct during the departmental investigation and disciplinary hearing.

Commenting that the commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of numerous Yonkers police officers, the Appellate Division said that there was no basis to disturb the commissioner’s credibility determinations.

Under the circumstances, the court said that "the penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness."

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

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State. A 1272 page e-book. For more information click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

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

Evidence lawfully obtained may be used to initiate an investigation of an employee even if similar information was received in violation of law

Evidence lawfully obtained may be used to initiate an investigation of an employee even if similar information was received in violation of law
Matter of Lomax v Kelly, 2011 NY Slip Op 01894, Appellate Division, First Department

Richard Lomax, a New York City probationary police officer, was off-duty with a fellow officer when the vehicle he was driving skidded on ice and rear-ended another car. Lomax called 911 to report the accident.

The occupants of the other vehicle, however, attacked the officers resulting in Lomax sustaining serious head injuries.

In the course of prosecuting the assailants, an Assistant District Attorney discovered that Lomax's medical records indicated that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident. This was reported to a NYPD sergeant, who then reported the finding to the Internal Affairs Bureau and ultimately Lomax was terminated.

Lomax challenged his dismissal from his position. In considering Lomax’s appeal, the Appellate Division said that “Even assuming that the Assistant District Attorney violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [HIPPA]* upon disclosing the contents of [Lomax’s] medical records to the NYPD, [NYPD] properly relied on records lawfully obtained from an independent source to conduct the [Internal Affairs] investigation.”

The Appellate Division, sustaining his termination as a probationary employee, ruled that the medical records used by NYPD showing that Lomax was driving while intoxicated provided “a rational basis for his dismissal as a probationary police officer and established that the termination was not made in bad faith.”

* N.B. As to such disclosure by the Assistant Attorney General, HIPPA’s privacy rules require “that health plans, health care clearinghouses, and certain health care providers guard against misuse of individuals' identifiable health information and limit the sharing of such information” [see Public Law 104-191; Title II, Subtitle F; Part C--Administrative Simplification, §1171, Definitions, posted on the Internet at http://www.cms.gov/HIPAAGenInfo/Downloads/HIPAALaw.pdf ].

The Lomax decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01894.htm
.

Compelling arbitration in cases where the grievance is based on the unilateral act or omission of a third party

Compelling arbitration in cases where the grievance is based on the unilateral act or omission of a third party
Remsen CSD v Remsen Teachers Asso., 270 AD2d 796 [Decided with In re Mohawk Central School District, 270 AD2d 798]

In Richfield Springs CSD v Allen, 270 AD2d 734, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the fact that a third party provides the employer’s negotiated fringe benefit does not insulate the employer from its duty to negotiate changes in the terms and conditions of employment if third party unilaterally decides to change the benefit.

In Richfield, the union was concerned that a change in a prescription drug plan provided by a new carrier would be inferior to the coverage provided by the old carrier.

The Appellate Division held that the grievance challenging the change in the carrier of the prescription drug plan covering its members was subject to arbitration under the contract grievance procedure set out in the Taylor Law agreement.

A substitute for the carrier of the prescription drug plan specified in the agreement was changed without the Association’s consent. This, said the court, supported the claim of an alleged violation of the Agreement which the parties clearly and unequivocally agreed to arbitrate.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, came to the same conclusion in the Remsen case.

Remsen Teachers Association president Nora Revere sued to compel the district to submit a grievance alleging a violation of its collective bargaining agreement. The district said that any change was beyond its control since the alleged violation resulted from the third party replacing its then current insurance carrier for its prescription drug plan with a different carrier.

According to the decision, the fact that the changes were made by an entity that was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement did not justify granting the district’s motion to stay arbitration.

In view of the parties’ broad arbitration agreement and the provisions relating to health insurance benefits, the court ruled that the alleged violation of the collective bargaining agreement resulting from changes in prescription drug benefits presents an arbitrable issue.

The Fourth Department pointed out that whether the district possesses authority or control over the amount or type of health insurance benefits provided to its employees, and whether the district the collective bargaining agreement with respect to maintaining a certain level of benefits, is for the arbitrator to determine.


.

Consolidating positions in the public service

Consolidating positions in the public service
Informal opinions of the Attorney General, Informal Opinion 93-2
Opinions of the Commissioner of Education, Opinion 9994

In view of the discussions focusing attaining economies in the public service, the following views of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Education may be of interest with respect to suggestions involving the consolidation of certain positions in the public service,

The Attorney General has concluded that Section 58.1-c of the Civil Service Law requires municipalities to maintain separate offices of police commissioner and of police chief and thus the City of Schenectady could not combine the positions of police commissioner and chief of police nor abolish the position of chief of police [Informal Opinions of the Attorney General 93-2].

Although the Commissioner of Education earlier ruled that each school must have a principal of its own [Opinions of the Commissioner of Education #9994], which is reflected in 8 NYCRR 100.2(a), whereby “The board of education of each school district shall employ and assign to each school under its supervision a full-time principal holding the appropriate certification as required pursuant to section 80.4(b) of this Title,” the Commissioner may approve modifications in the management of such schools “Upon the submission of evidence that there are circumstances which do not justify the assignment of a principal to a particular school, or that another mode of building administration would be more effective….”
.

Agency’s failure to respond to requests for information does not toll the Statute of Limitations for filing a timely petition

Agency’s failure to respond to requests for information does not toll the Statute of Limitations for filing a timely petition
Troeller v Klein, 2011 NY Slip Op 01874, Appellate Division, First Department

Robert J. Troeller sued the New York City Department of Education [DOE] claiming a breach a stipulation of settlement between the Union and DOE.

Troeller contended that the agreement between the parties was "quite different" from the way DOE was interpreting it. However as the petition to deem the notice timely was brought more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action and his petition was dismissed by the court.

One of the arguments advanced by Troeller: DOE should be estopped from asserting a “late notice of claim” defense because DOE did not respond to his requests for certain information. The Appellate Division said that this argument “is unavailing.”

The court explained that "An estoppel cannot be founded upon [a defendant school district’s] failure to communicate with [a plaintiff] in response to . . . bills”, citing Amsterdam Wrecking & Salvage Co. v Greater Amsterdam School Dist., 83 AD2d 654, affd 56 NY2d 828. “A fortiori*,” the court continued, “an estoppel cannot be founded on [DOE’s] delay in responding to [Troeller’s] requests for information."

* Latin: For or with even stronger reason.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01874.htm
.

Competing union interests

Competing union interests
Buffalo CSD v Local 264, 270 AD2d 814

Suppose an arbitration award in favor of an employee in one collective bargaining unit adversely affects an employee of the same employer in another collective bargaining unit. What can the second employee’s union do about the award?

This was the issue considered by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in the Buffalo City School District case. Its conclusion: In this instance, nothing!

The two unions involved, AFSCME Local 264 [Local 264] and the Professional, Clerical and Technical Employees Association [PCTEA], represented different negotiating units of individuals employed by the Buffalo City School District.

The PCTEA collective bargaining agreement included a provision that gave its unit members preference in selection for promotion. Here the first and second ranking eligibles on a promotion list were Local 264 unit members; third on the list was a PCTEA unit member.

The Board promoted the first eligible on the list, a member of the unit represented by Local 264, to the vacancy. Its action, of course, was consistent with the exercise of its discretion within the meaning of Section 61 of the Civil Service Law -- the so-called rule of three.

PCTEA, however, filed a contract grievance, claiming Buffalo had violated the collective bargaining agreement when it appointed the Local 264 unit member and ultimately the matter went to arbitration. The arbitrator sustained PCTEA position, ruling that the Board, by appointing a Local 264 unit member to the vacancy had:

1. Violated its collective bargaining agreement with PCTEA;

2. Violated a past practice; and

3. Failed to comply with the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Professional, Clerical and Technical Employees Association v Buffalo Board of Education, 90 NY2d 364.

In PCTEA v Buffalo, the Court of Appeals held that no strong public policy prohibits an appointing authority from agreeing through collective negotiations to give promotional preference to certain members on an eligible list where a probationary period precedes their permanent appointment.*

In contrast to the situation in Buffalo v Local 264, in the earlier case, PCTEA v Buffalo, the highest-scoring candidate on the promotion eligible list for the position, as well as the next four individuals on the promotion list, were all PCTEA unit members.

The arbitrator directed the Board to promote the PCTEA member, who was ranked third on the list, to the position with back pay, which, of course, meant that the Local 264 member would be terminated from the position.

The Board brought an Article 75 action in an effort to vacate the award.

Local 264 tried to intervene in the litigation on behalf of its member, but the Appellate Division said that it did not have any standing to do so. The Appellate Division also reversed the lower court’s ruling vacating the award.

Why didn’t Local 264 have standing? Because, the Appellate Division explained, [a]lthough the rights of the employees represented by Local 264 are adversely affected by the arbitration award, Local 264 was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement at issue or the arbitration.

Despite the award’s adverse impact on a member of Local 264 and the contractual preference favoring PCTEA members for selection for promotion, the court said that no strong public policy was violated justifying the vacating of the award.

Further, said the court, the fact that Local 264 members were first and second on the promotion list did not change the result, rejecting the Board’s argument that the arbitration award violated the merit and fitness mandate set out in Article V, Section 6 of the State Constitution.

While the member of Local 264 who was first on the promotion list was actually selected for the appointment, the court said that Article V, Section 6, does not require that the top candidate be selected. The negotiated agreement, however, mandated that the PCTEA member highest on the list, and otherwise reachable for appointment, be selected for the appointment.

Since Section 61 of the Civil Service Law permits the selection of one of the top three candidates from the eligible list, the award does not automatically bar members of Local 264 from promotional positions for which a member of PCTEA might be considered because a PCTEA member may not be one of the top three candidates.

The court’s rationale for upholding such a provision contained in a collective bargaining agreement:

The promotional practices of a public employer constitute a term or condition of employment that may be determined through collective bargaining under the Taylor Law. Accordingly, in the absence of a prohibition in statutory or decisional law, or countervailing public policy, provisions which relate to the use of preferences in the promotion of unit members based on examination scores concern a term or condition of employment and thus are a proper subject for collective bargaining and subsequent resolution of disputes through contract arbitration procedures.

* Randall comments: The decision states that the appointment of the PCTEA unit member does not become a permanent appointment until the expiration of a 60-day probationary period. Thus, said the court, the Board has the opportunity to assess other character traits that may have been unmeasurable by the competitive examination.

I believe that it is more accurate to characterize such an employee’s status as permanent subject to the satisfactory completion of a probationary period as all such probationary appointments are permanent appointments or, under certain circumstances, a contingent permanent appointment.

As an example, most probationary periods are set with a minimum and a maximum period of probation. Courts have held that a probationary employee in the competitive class who is to be dismissed before completing his or her minimum period of probation is entitled to notice and hearing within the meaning of Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Essentially individuals holding permanent appointment in the competitive class, certain employees in the non-competitive class, veterans who served in time of war and exempt volunteer firefighters are covered by Section 75.

A probationer may be dismissed without notice and hearing after completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation for the position. If the employee is retained after completing the maximum period of probation, he or she has acquired tenure in the position for the purposes of Section 75.

Another example: for the purpose determining seniority in layoffs pursuant to Sections 80 and 80-a of the Civil Service Law, the individual’s initial date of uninterrupted permanent service controls. Such seniority runs from the date on which the employee commenced his or her original probationary period, not the date on which he or she satisfactorily completed that probationary period.
.

Administrative decisions and actions must be made in compliance to the law

Administrative decisions and actions must be made in compliance to the law
Cimino v Grasso, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, #14,319

Michael J. Cimino asked the Commissioner of Education to remove members of the board of education and the superintendent of the Plainedge Union Free School District.

The complaint: the board and the superintendent had spent $79,000 to illegally construct and equip a room for the board without first obtaining voter approval, without getting competitive bids and without the board adopting a resolution authorizing the expenditures.

Cimino also alleged that expenditures for the purchase of computers, computer desks and online service for home use by board members constitutes an unconstitutional gift of public monies [Article VIII, Section 1].

Contending that all the expenditures were made in good faith and for legitimate district interests, school superintendent Gene Grasso took full responsibility for the decision to fund the projects with operation and maintenance monies rather than as capital expenses. He also said that the board had absolutely no involvement in the project.

The Commissioner, with certain exceptions, said that serious violations of law and policy have occurred in this matter. However, he also stated that removal from office is a drastic remedy that should be taken only in extreme circumstances. As there was no evidence that the superintendent or board members willfully violated the law and the construction constituted a substantial and continuing benefit to the district, the Commissioner declined to exercise his power of removal.

The superintendent and the board members were told to be absolutely scrupulous in their future compliance with the law, as additional violations of this kind may well subject them to removal.
.

All about "cloud computing"

All about "cloud computing"
Source: Sui Generis - a New York Law Blog written by Nicole Black, Esq. at http://nylawblog.typepad.com/suigeneris/

Nicole Black explains the basics of “cloud computing” in an article published in the March 14, 2011 issue of the Daily Record.

It is posted on the Internet at:
http://nylawblog.typepad.com/files/dr-3.14.11.pdf
.

Serving disciplinary charges on an employee in a disciplinary probation period status does not preclude his or her summary termination

Serving disciplinary charges on an employee in a disciplinary probation period status does not preclude his or her summary termination
Matter of Nieves-Diaz v City of New York, 37 AD3d 356

After being served with disciplinary charges while serving a disciplinary probation period, New York City Police Detective Luis Nieves-Diaz was summarily terminated from the Department without being given a pre-termination hearing on those charges.

In response to Nieves-Diaz’s appeal challenging his termination, the Appellate Division said that because Nieves-Diaz was on “dismissal probation,” he was subject to termination for any reason or for no reason, and without explanation, as long as the termination was not made in bad faith or for an impermissible reason.

Nieves-Diaz’s appeal did not allege that his termination was made in bad faith or for an impermissible reason.

Noting that the Department had “broad prerogative” to terminate Nieves-Diaz as a probationary employee, the Appellate Division ruled that the fact that Nieves-Diaz was served with disciplinary charges while in disciplinary probation status did not preclude his summary termination as a probationary employee.

Thus, said the court, the Department was not required to provide Nieves-Diaz with a “pre-termination hearing” regarding the charges that were served on him while he was in probationary status as a “condition precedent” to his dismissal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/summary-termiination-during.html
.

A public employer may not unilaterally discontinue a past practice but must negotiate any proposed change with the appropriate employee organization

A public employer may not unilaterally discontinue a past practice but must negotiate any proposed change with the appropriate employee organization
Matter of Meegan v Brown, 2011 NY Slip Op 01158, Appellate Division

The City of Buffalo appealed the denial of its Article 75 motion seeking a stay of arbitration to address a grievance filed by Buffalo Police Benevolent Association President Robert P. Meegan, Jr. challenging the City’s refusal to pay certain collective bargaining agreement (CBA) benefits to police officers receiving General Municipal Law §207-c benefits

Affirming the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the City’s motion, the Appellate Division said that although “It is well settled that the benefits provided to a police officer pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c are exclusive, and a CBA will not be construed as impliedly expanding such benefit.,” there is no prohibition against a CBA providing for enhancements to §207-c benefits provided by law.

As the City of Buffalo conceded, it had been paying CBA benefits to police officers receiving General Municipal Law §207-c benefits for over 40 years. Viewing this as a “past practice” providing for certain “fringe benefits for current employees,” the Appellate Division held that such a past practice cannot be unilaterally modified by the public employer “even where unrelated to any specific contractual provision.” The court explained that a public employer has "a duty to negotiate with the bargaining representative of current employees regarding any change in past practice affecting [such] benefits."

The Appellate Division also observed that the CBA contained a "Maintenance of Benefits" clause.

This clause, said the court, provided that "[a]ll conditions or provisions beneficial to employees now in effect [that] are not specifically provided for in [the CBA] or [that] have not been replaced by provisions of [the CBA] shall remain in effect for the duration of [the CBA], unless mutually agreed otherwise between the City and [petitioner Buffalo Police Benevolent Association]."

Clearly, said the court, the City also had a contractual duty to negotiate a change in any past practice and it lacked the authority to unilaterally discontinue the payment of the benefits at issue to police officers receiving General Municipal Law §207-c benefits.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01158.htm

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

General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder is available from the Public Employment Law Press. For more information click on http://section207.blogspot.com/

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

Hearing officer rejects motion to seal disciplinary hearing records but redacts the name of the victim of the employee's misconduct

Hearing officer rejects motion to seal disciplinary hearing records but redacts* the name of the victim of the employee's misconduct
Fire Department v Palleschi, OATH Index #551/11

In this Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary action, an EMT Lieutenant was charged with “bringing the agency into disrepute and showing disrespect to the public.” OATH Administrative Law Judge Joan Salzman said that the Lieutenant admitted the charges “in all material respects” and that the critical issue was her recommendation to as to the appropriate penalty for such misconduct.

Judge Salzman recommended the termination of an EMS lieutenant who admitted that he had posted private and confidential patient information on his Facebook page, "where 460 of his friends could see it for their amusement."

Significantly, Judge Salzman rejected a motion made after the close of the evidence whereby the parties jointly asked to have the Administrative Law Judge “seal the entire record.”

The ALJ explained her reason as follows:

I declined, because this was a public hearing, 48 RCNY §1-49 (Lexis 2009), and there was no reason to seal the entire record. See Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345, 348-49 (1st Dep’t 2010) (“Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records”; public right to access is not absolute, and confidentiality is the exception, not the rule). However, I did indicate to the parties that I was not going to identify the patient in my decision and directed them to review the transcript and exhibits and to redact her identity (meaning name, address, and phone number) from this record should it be sought for publication or filed in court. Even though that information was on the Internet, I see no reason to republish it.

* Remove or black out material in a document prior to its publication or release.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-192.pdf
..

Complying with all statutory tests critical to sustaining an administrative decision

Complying with all statutory tests critical to sustaining an administrative decision
Gallo v Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37 AD3d 984

Albert P. Gallo’s application for employment as a bus driver with the Schenectady County Chapter NYSARC, Inc. (ARC) was rejected by OMRDD after it found that Gallo had been convicted of assault in the second degree in 1988.

OMRDD said that his employment as an ARC driver involved an unreasonable risk to the safety or welfare of consumers served by ARC in view of this conviction. Gallo sued, asking the court to overturn OMRDD’s determination.

Supreme Court found the record “insufficiently developed” and annulled OMRDD’s determination. The court also directed OMRDD to approve ARC's employment of Gallo but denied Gallo counsel fees. The parties cross-appealed, OMRDD from that part of the judgment annulling its determination and directing it to approve Gallo’s employment by ARC and Gallo from the denial of counsel fees.

The Appellate Division said that OMRDD is required by statute to undertake criminal history background checks of employees of voluntary corporations such as Schenectady ARC. It noted that when Gallo’s background check revealed the 1988 assault in the second-degree conviction, OMRDD notified Gallo of its finding. It also advised him “to submit any answering documentation.”

After receiving Gallo’s letter of explanation and letters of reference, OMRDD rejected Gallo’s application, indicating that its decision was “on the grounds that [Gallo was] convicted of a crime or crimes” and that this determination was consistent with the provisions of Correction Law Article 23-A.

The court noted that Correction Law Section 753, which is part of Article 23-A, sets out eight elements that a public agency is to consider in making a determination pursuant to Correction Law Section 752 concerning licensure or employment of any individual with a criminal conviction. In the words of the Appellate Division:

When all eight factors are considered and the positive factors are balanced against the negative factors, the resulting decision is neither arbitrary nor capricious nor does it constitute an abuse of discretion and reviewing courts may not reweigh the factors and substitute their judgment for that of the agency.

In this instance, however, the Appellate Division found that a number of the statutory elements required to be considered were not set out in the “checklist” that OMRDD claimed mirrored the statutory factors and was used in making OMRDD’s determination regarding Gallo’s eligibility for employment by ARC.

Because these factors were apparently not considered, the Appellate Division ruled that OMRDD’s determination was arbitrary. It remitted the matter back to OMRDD for its consideration of “the public policy issue and for a determination of whether a certificate of relief from disabilities or good conduct or the equivalent evidence would benefit this applicant.”

Addressing the issue of the attorney fees claimed by Gallo, the court said it that denial of counsel fees was not premature and OMRDD’s position herein “may ultimately prove to be correct” and, in any event, “it was substantially justified.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/complying-with-all-statutory-tests.html
.