Union animus

Union animus
CSEA Local 860 v PERB, 276 AD2d 967, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 96 NY2d 704

Michael Holcomb, a probationary employee, was terminated from his employment as a maintenance laborer with the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities [DEF]. Local 860 filed charges with PERB alleged that Holcomb’s discharge violated Civil Service Law Section 209-a(1)(a) and Section 209-a(1)(c).

PERB’s Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] determined that the Holcomb’s probationary evaluation and discharge recommendation by his supervisor were tainted by union animus and therefore an improper employer practice. The ALJ noted that in the comment section of the evaluation form, Holcomb supervisor wrote that Holcomb tries to get involved with every bodies [sic] union business even if they don’t want him involved.

Because of deficiencies in the proof, however, the ALJ was unable to conclude whether Holcomb’s employment would have been continued absent union animus. DEF was directed to reinstate Holcomb with back pay and benefits and to perform a de novo evaluation of Holcomb’s job performance after a probationary period, without consideration of his union activities.

PERB affirmed the ALJ’s finding of an improper employer practice but modified the remedy. It directed that Holcomb be reinstated to his former job title in another county agency in which he was to serve a second probationary period and be evaluated as to his performance in his new position. PERB also ruled that its ALJ’s unconditional order of back pay and benefits was inappropriate and decided that Holcomb would be entitled to reimbursement for lost pay and benefits only if the de novo evaluation resulted in a recommendation that his employment be continued.

The general rule in cases alleging improper motivation based on union animus is that the employee must demonstrate a prima facie case of such motivation. Once this is done, the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to establish that its actions were motivated by legitimate business reasons.

The Appellate Division said that if an employer’s action was motivated by anti-union animus, it is irrelevant ... whether or not cause for the employer’s action in terminating [the employee] actually existed, citing Civil Service Employees Association, Local 1000 v New York State Public Employee Relations Board, 267 AD2d 935, 937. Where, said the court, it has been established that an improper practice led to the termination of the employee, PERB has directed “make whole relief,” including reinstatement with an unconditional award of back pay and benefits.

Finding that PERB concurred with the determination of its ALJ that Holcomb’s termination was unlawful, the Appellate Division concluded that “it is evident that PERB found that [Holcomb] had met [his] burden of establishing prima facie evidence of improper motivation.”

Accordingly, the burden then shifted to DEF to show that its actions were founded on legitimate business concerns. DEF had to present evidence that Holcomb’s poor job performance justified his discharge.

As the ALJ held that the performance evaluation that precipitated the discharge was tainted by union animus, which rendered it impossible to determine whether Holcomb’s employment would have been continued absent the evaluation, DEF clearly failed to meet its burden.

The bottom line: Since DEF did not establish that Holcomb would have been discharged for reasons unrelated to union animus, it was unreasonable for PERB to have provided a remedy that penalized the employee for the employer’s failure of proof and thus Holcomb was entitled to an unconditional award of back pay and benefits.

Failure to serve notice of an appeal to the Commissioner of Education as set out in the Commissioner’s regulations a fatal procedural defect

Failure to serve notice of an appeal to the Commissioner of Education as set out in the Commissioner’s regulations a fatal procedural defect
Matter of Blake v Mills, 2010 NY Slip Op 09057, Decided on December 9, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

Shango Blake, a principal in the New York City School District, was charged with 14 counts of misconduct. An arbitration hearing was held pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and Education Law §3020(3), following which the arbitrator found Blake guilty of misconduct and recommended that petitioner's employment be terminated.

After the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education implemented the penalty recommended, Blake attempted to appeal the Chancellor's decision to State’s Commissioner of Education by serving copies of the appeal papers on a clerk in the Chancellor's office and on an administrator in the community school district superintendent's office.

The Commissioner rejected Blake’s appeal, noting that he had not complied with the service requirements for appeals to the Commissioner from decisions of the Chancellor.

The Appellate Division sustained the Commissioner’s dismissal of Blake’s appeal based on his finding of “improper service.” The court observed that “In disciplinary matters governed by Education Law §3020(3), appeals to the Commissioner must be instituted by "effecting personal service of a copy of the appeal . . . upon: (1) the chancellor, or a person designated to accept service on behalf of the chancellor; and (2) the community school district superintendent who initiated the arbitration proceeding, or a person in the office of such superintendent who has been designated to accept service."*

As Blake did not “effect personal service upon the Chancellor” nor upon the New York City Law Department, "the exclusive agent designated to accept service on behalf of the Chancellor," the Appellate Division held that Blake’ failed to comply with the applicable regulation, 8 NYCRR 281.6, and thus the Commissioner's dismissal of his administrative appeal for such defective service was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor was it an error of law.

* Blake did not show that the person served in the community school district superintendent's office was specifically designated to accept service on the superintendent's behalf, thus such service was defective.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_09057.htm

Ordering worker to report to agency’s medical clinic for an examination does result in liability if the employee’s injury is exacerbating as a result

Ordering worker to report to agency’s medical clinic for an examination does result in liability if the employee’s injury is exacerbating as a result
Bonomonte v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 09165, Decided on December 14, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department

Dominic Bonomonte, a New York City Sanitation employee was on sick leave due to surgeries to his arm. He slipped and fell outside his home on his way to a mandated doctor's appointment at the Sanitation Department's clinic, exacerbating of his injuries.

Bonomonte sued, contending that his fall was a foreseeable consequence of the Department’s negligence in ordering him to the clinic at a time when it should have been aware that he had been directed by his physician not to travel.

Supreme Court dismissed his petition and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination.

The Appellate Division said that “Dismissal of the complaint was warranted, since there was no duty flowing from [the Department] to [Bonomonte],” citing Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 5 NY3d 486.

The court explained that “Contrary to Bonomonte’s] contention, a duty was not created by the fact that [Department’s] clinical supervisor had ordered [Bonomonte] to travel to the clinic or face possible termination or suspension of employment and medical benefits.”

Further, said the court, the evidence fails to establish “proximate cause,” as the directive that Bonomonte report to the clinic merely furnished the occasion for the accident.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_09165.htm