Displacement and layoff

Displacement and layoff
Yonkers Muni. Housing Auth. v Dugan, 261 AD2d 406

Typically when a position is abolished and this results in the layoff of a permanent employee, his or her name is placed on a preferred list in accordance with the provisions of Civil Service Law Section 80 [permanent employees in the competitive class] or Section 80-a [permanent employees in the noncompetitive class].

In some instances, however, the individual may be able to “displace” a less senior, lower grade employee in accordance with Section 80.6 of the Civil Service Law. Section 80.6 essentially allows a higher level, more senior individual whose position in the competitive class has been abolished to “displace” a less senior employee in a lower grade position “in the direct line of promotion” of the relevant job class.*

The Dugan case arose after the Yonkers Civil Service Commission ruled that Iliana Rodriguez, a Yonkers Housing Authority Field Representative had the right to “retreat” to another Housing Authority position -- Tenant Relations Aide -- when her position was abolished. The Commission’s decision was challenged by three Authority employees: Thomas E. Dugan, Mary E. Dorman, and Patricia Ortiz.

In the court proceeding that followed the Commission conceded that it was incorrect when it held that Rodriguez had the right to “retreat” to the title Tenant Relations Aide, and that it should have placed Rodriguez’s name a preferred list for the title of Field Representative as of the date of her termination.

The Commission then contended that the position of Tenant Relations Aide was “comparable” to the position formerly held by Rodriguez and thus her appointment from the Field Representative preferred list was authorized by Civil Service Law Section 81.

However, as the decision points out, the Commission’s initial determination contained no finding that the two titles were comparable. This was a fatal omission in the eyes of the Appellate Division. Nor could the court support the determination that Rodriguez had the right to ‘retreat’, because the Commission had admitted that it was in error with respect to that determination.


Accordingly, the matter had to be remanded [returned] to the Commission so that it could make express findings of fact, and to make whatever it deems the correct determination to be. The decision notes that “without such minimal findings, and without a concrete statement of exactly what it is the Commission intended to determine, intelligent judicial review is not possible.

Typically the price of making an incorrect personnel decision in a layoff situation is that the appointing authority must appoint or reinstate the individual who was entitled to the position with back salary and benefits as a matter of law.

* Section 80-a.6 provides displacement rights to employees in the noncompetitive class if specified conditions are satisfied.

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about layoff procedures involving employees in the public service in New York State please click here: http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ ============================================
NYPPL

Dual employment

Dual employment
Holbrook v Rockland Co, 260 AD2d 437

Most public officers and employees serve in one position at a time. Sometimes, however, an individual may be employed by two different jurisdictions simultaneously. Such dual employments generally require the knowledge and approval of the appointing authorities involved.*

Dual employments are often suspect -- particularly when both are purported to be “full-time” posts. Another consideration: is there the appearance of, if not an actual, a conflict of interest involved in a particular “dual employment” situation. As the Attorney General advised in an informal opinion:

In the absence of a constitutional or statutory prohibition against dual-office holding, one person may hold two offices simultaneously unless they are incompatible [Informal Opinions of the Attorney General 98-17, May 11, 1998].

The opinion notes that the “leading case on compatibility of office” is People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295. In Ryan the Court of Appeals said that “two offices are incompatible is one is subordinate to the other or if there is an inherent inconsistency between the two offices.”

The Holbrook case involved a “dual employment” situation, but with a novel twist. Here the “appointing authority” in each instance was the voter. Charles E. Holbrook had been elected to two different Rockland County public offices, by two different electorates, and, as a result, was simultaneously serving in two different elective offices in two different jurisdictions.

However, in 1993 Rockland County had passed a local law -- the so-called “two hats” law -- barring an elected county officials from holding any other elected town or village office [Rockland County Local Laws of 1993, #6]. In other words, an individual could not hold a county elective office if in so serving he or she would be simultaneously serving as a local elected officer in another public jurisdiction.**

Holbrook, who was elected to serve in the Rockland County Legislature, had also been elected to position of town supervisor of a town in Rockland County. He challenged Local Law 1993 #6, as well as a 1997 local law providing for reapportionment of election districts, contending that both local laws were invalid because they had been enacted without a voter referendum as mandated by Municipal Home Rule Law Section 23(2)(e) and (f).

The Appellate Division affirmed a ruling by a Supreme Court justice rejecting Holbrook’s complaint, holding that both local laws had been validly adopted. The decision noted that while Section 23(2)(e) and (f) requires a referendum if the proposed local law “changes the term of an elective office”, or “curtails any power of an elective officer,” Rockland’s “two hat” laws merely prohibited Rockland County legislators from simultaneously holding a second elective office. The Appellate Division said that the local laws in question neither changed the terms of an elective office nor curtail any powers of an elective officer.

* Dual employments, in which appointments to different positions are made, are not the same as a “joint appointment.” In a joint appointment, two [or more] appointing authorities jointly authorize the employment of an individual in a single position and the two appointing authorities typically share the personnel service costs.

** Local Law 1993, #6, permitted elected county officials then holding two elective offices to continue to serve in both offices until January 1, 1998.
NYPPL

Duty of fair representation

Duty of fair representation
Matter of Beattie, 32 PERB 3023

Representation by an attorney provided by a union is an important right of membership in an employee organization. The Matter of Beattie decision makes the point that an employee organization’s duty to represent a member “in any further pursuit” of his or her claims against an employer, or in defense against any adverse action taken by the employer, ceases if the individual employs a private attorney to handle the matter.

Guilderland Teachers Aide Association member Patricia Beattie filed improper practice charges against the association with PERB in which she alleged that:

1. The association refused to file a complaint charging another school district employee with sexual harassment when asked to do so.

2. The association’s president told Beattie she would lose her job [sic] because she had employed a private attorney to represent her concerning her sexual harassment complaint.

According to the PERB decision, in response to a June 1996 complaint, Rex Trobridge, an association representative, initially determined that Beattie might have been sexually harassed by another school district employee. Trobridge later learned that in January 1996 the employee Beattie named in her complaint alleged the reverse: that Beattie had sexual harassed him. The association advised Beattie that it would provide her with legal representation in both cases.

Before the association’s attorney had filed any complaint with the Division of Human Rights or had met with the school superintendent on her behalf, Beattie hired private counsel. PERB said that at that point in time the association’s duty to represent her ceased.

Meanwhile, a private attorney named Thomas Kenney was employed by the Guilderland School District to investigate both sets of allegations. Kenney found that “each interviewee with knowledge of the events covered by the complaints corroborated [the other employee’s] claims [of sexual harassment] and offered no support for Beattie’s claims [of sexual harassment].” Ultimately Beattie was told of Kenney’s findings and was formally reprimanded by the school superintendent.

PERB sustained its administrative law judge’s dismissal of the charges Beattie filed against the association. It ruled that Beattie’s claim that her complaint “was handled in a perfunctory manner” by the association was not supported by the record.

PERB, in a footnote, observed that Association attorney Harold Beyer testified that he intended to pursue Beattie’s complaint with the State Division of Human Rights after exhausting the school district’s sexual harassment procedure.

As to Beattie’s allegation that association president Barbara Coogan violated the Taylor Law when she commented that “Beattie was crazy to hire a private attorney...,” PERB said that “there is simply nothing improper in the timing or content” of the statement.

PERB said that it viewed Cooper’s statement as “merely an expression of [her] incredulity that a union member would choose not to utilize the counsel provided by the union, at no charge, and instead choose to pay a private attorney.”

Such a statement, said PERB, in no way violated the Taylor Law since it was an expression of an opinion by Cooper, and as such, “is not actionable.
NYPPL