Unless meeting specified time requirements to advance a grievance to the next step is expressly set out in a collective bargaining agreement, timeliness is an issue for the arbitrator to resolve

Unless meeting specified time requirements to advance a grievance to the next step is expressly set out in a collective bargaining agreement, timeliness is an issue for the arbitrator to resolve

Matter of Board of Educ. of The Rondout Val. Cent. Sch. Dist. (Rondout Val. Fedn. of Teachers), 2012 NY Slip Op 08862, Appellate Division, Third Department

The relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA) spelled out time frames for the processing of grievances and included a clause stating "[t]he failure on the part of [Rondout Valley Federation of Teachers] to advance a pending grievance to the next stage within the time periods set forth herein shall constitute an abandonment of the grievance."

Certain grievances proceeded through the initial procedural stages of the grievance procedure set out in the CBA and ultimately the Federation filed demands for arbitration of these grievances with American Arbitration Association. Contending that these grievances were not processed consistent with the time requirements spelled out in the CBA and were thus “abandoned,” the school district filed a petition pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) seeking to stay the arbitrations.

Supreme Court granting the district's petition for a stay, holding that “the submission of a timely demand for arbitration constituted a condition precedent to the filing for arbitration” and the Federation appealed.

The Appellate Division vacated the lower court’s decision with respect to the Federation’s demands for arbitration. The court explained that “Where a collective bargaining agreement contains a broad arbitration clause, the question of whether a party has complied with the procedural requirements of the grievance process — such as time limitations — is to be resolved by an arbitrator absent ‘a provision expressly making compliance with the time limitations a condition precedent to arbitration.’"

Rejecting the school district’s argument that the provision in the CBA's specifying that non-adherence to time limits set out in the CBA constituted an "abandonment" of the grievances and thus precluded advancing them to arbitration, the Appellate Division held that the CBA did not expressly condition access to arbitration on adherence to the time limits set out in the grievance procedure.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that the question of whether the Federation’s grievances were timely filed is a question of "procedural arbitrability" to be resolved by an arbitrator.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08862.htm

Overhauled Hatch Act takes effect on January 27, 2013

Overhauled Hatch Act takes effect on January 27, 2013

Source: NYMUNIBLOG published by Harris Beach PLLC*. Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2013, All rights reserved.

Kevin P. Ryan, Esq. has posted the following item explaining certain changes resulting from the recently amended Hatch Act on the Harris Beach PLLC blog NYMUNIBLOG. Mr. Ryan writes:

"On December 28, 2012, President Obama signed into law an overhaul of the Hatch Act that eased the restrictions on state or local government employees seeking elected office.

"The Hatch Act, as it existed prior to the enactment of the recent legislation (S. 2170), prohibited state and local government employees whose employment was connected to activities receiving federal funding from running as candidates for partisan political office; from using their official authority to influence an election or nomination; or pressuring or advising another state or local employee to make a political contribution.

"Since the old legislation applied to state and local government employees whose employment was broadly defined as “being in connection with activities receiving federal funding,” it served as a blanket prohibition of nearly all state and local government employees from running for office. 

"By way of example, after Robert J. Duffy resigned as mayor of the City of Rochester to become the lieutenant governor, the then deputy mayor, Thomas S. Richards, was sworn in as acting mayor. After a Hatch Act complaint was filed, Richards was forced to resign that position in order to run in a special election to succeed Mayor Duffy, forcing the appointment of a separate acting mayor in the interim.

"The new legislation relaxes that restriction and takes effect January 27, 2013.

"The legislation approved by Congress and signed into law by the president removes the prohibition on certain state and local employees running for elected office unless their salary is paid entirely by federal funds.  Thus, in relaxing the restriction to employees whose employment is in connection with activities receiving federal funding to those only whose salaries are funded entirely with federal funds, the ability of state and local government employees to run for political office is expanded.

"While the new legislation does expand the ability of state and local government employees to run for office, it still prohibits employees whose employment is “in connection with an activity supported by federal funding” from using their official authority to affect an election or nomination or to coerce or advise another state or local employee to make a political contribution. The new legislation also keeps in place the exemption of the governor, lieutenant governor, the mayor of a city, or other elected official from being subject to the terms of the Hatch Act."

* NYMUNIBLOG.COM was created and is maintained by the law firm of Harris Beach PLLC as a public service. For more information about NYMUNIBLOG please go to: http://nymuniblog.com/

NYPPL comment:.See, also, Civil Service Law §107 "Prohibition against certain political activities; improper influence."

Postings on Internet social networks deemed inappropriate may result in disciplinary action

Postings on Internet social networks deemed inappropriate may result in disciplinary action

1 .Rubino v City of New York, 34 Misc 3d 1220(A)

2. In re Tenure Hearing of Jennifer O’Brien, A-2452-11T4, Appellate Division, New Jersey Superior Court

3. Fire Department v Palleschi, OATH Index #551/11

4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 16,121

The posting of material on social networks such as Facebook alleged to be inappropriate has resulted in disciplinary action being initiated against educators; students and employees.

Examples of such disciplinary actions are set out below:

The Rubino case: This decision by New York State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffee illustrates the consequences that may result from a posting on an individual’s Facebook "wall" that the employer subsequently determined was inappropriate. In this instance the posting by a teacher of material deemed inappropriate resulted in disciplinary charges alleging “misconduct, neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming her profession” being filed against the educator by the appointing authority. [See 34 Misc 3d 1220(A].

The O’Brien case: In re Tenure Hearing of Jennifer O’Brien, No. A-2452-11T4 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div. Jan. 11, 2013), the Appellate Division, New Jersey Superior Court, sustained a decision by an administrative law judge, affirmed by New Jersey’s Commissioner of Education, upholding the school district’s termination of an elementary school teacher for posting derogatory remarks about her students on Facebook. The court decided that the teacher’s remarks were not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as the remarks were not made on a matter of public concern.

The Palleschi case: In Fire Department of the City of New York v Palleschi, OATH Index #551/11, a New York City emergency medical technician [EMT] was served with disciplinary charges that alleged such postings resulted in “bringing the agency into disrepute and showing disrespect to the public.” OATH Administrative Law Judge Joan Salzman recommended the termination of  the EMT, 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."

The Appeal of G.I. case: Commissioner of Education Decision 16,121 considered disciplinary action initiated against a student alleged to have engaged in cyber-bullying. The appeal, Appeal of G.I, on behalf of her daughter K.I., from action of a Board of Education, concerned an alleged threatened “fist fight” resulting from a dispute following the publication of "inappropriate statements" about C.H. on C.H.’s “Facebook” page placed there by K.I.and another student, D.N. K.I. admitted to her teacher that she and D.N. had C.H.’s Facebook password and that they posted the derogatory statements. The Commissioner of Education sustained the school principal’s decision, approved by the school superintendent and the school board, to remove K.I. from her classroom for one day and have her spend the day under the supervision of an administrator.

In any event, there is another lesson here: posting information on a social network may prove to be an example of the Doctrine of Unintended Consequences should such postings be targeted for the purposes of discovery in the course of litigation or arbitration. 

This is a legal issue that courts being asked to address with increasing frequency. In Patterson v Turner, 88 AD3d 617, the court ruled that material on Facebook, if relevant, was subject to discovery while in Abrams v. Pecile, 83 A.D.3d 527, the court declined to permit discovery of material posted on social network sites because the party seeking such access was unable to demonstrate that such material would be relevant in the lawsuit. Presumably the same criteria would be used in situations involving efforts to obtain information posted on a social network account such as Facebook in an administrative disciplinary action or an arbitration.

The Rubino decision is posted on the Internet at:

 http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_50189.htm

The O’Brien decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2452-11.pdf

The Palleschi decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-192.pdf

The Commissioner’s decision in Matter of K.I. is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16121.htm