Disciplinary action taken under the CBA notwithstanding the teacher’s requesting a hearing pursuant to the CBA “reversed on the law”

Disciplinary action taken under the CBA notwithstanding the teacher’s requesting a hearing pursuant to the CBA “reversed on the law” 

2013 NY Slip Op 04472, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court decision that denied a tenured teacher’s [Educator] Article 78 petition seeking to annul the school district’s suspending her without pay for 30 days.

The Appellate Division said it agreed with Educator that the school district failed to comply with the requirements of Education Law §3020(1) when it disciplined her without affording her a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a.

The court explained that “the plain language of Education Law §3020(1) provides that a tenured teacher facing discipline, and whose terms and conditions of employment are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that became effective on or after September 1, 1994, is entitled to elect either the disciplinary procedures specified in Education Law §3020-a or the alternative procedures contained in the CBA.”

The court determined that the relevant CBA took effect on July 1, 2006. Accordingly, said the court, Educator was entitled to choose whether to be disciplined under the procedures set forth in the CBA or to elect a disciplinary hearing in accordance with Education Law §3020-a as a matter of law regardless of whether or not the CBA offered such an option.

The school district, however, had denied Educator’s written request for a §3020-a hearing.

Finding that the school district’s action was “incorrect,” the Appellate Division annulled the school district’s imposing a disciplinary penalty suspending Educator for 30 days without pay and directed the school district to [1] reinstate her to her position with back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of her suspension and [2] to remove all references to the discipline imposed from Educator’s personnel file.

Significantly, §3020.1, in pertinent part, provides that any such ”alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement that becomes effective on or after September 1, 1994, must provide for the written election by the employee of either the procedures specified in such §3020-a or the alternative disciplinary procedures contained in the collective bargaining agreement.” [emphasis supplied].

Further, the negotiated alternative disciplinary procedure must provided constitutional due process protections equivalent to those available under the statutory procedure [Antinore v State, 40 NY2d 6].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04472.htm

_____________________________

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

Local Government Performance and Efficiency Program (LGPEP) grant assistance

Source: Department of State

On June 19, 2013, the New York Department of State announced over $12 million in Local Government Performance and Efficiency Program (LGPEP) grant assistance in recognition of the recurring financial savings generated by 13 projects.  The grants will be distributed in equal parts over three years, and are contingent upon continued demonstration of savings. 

A competitive program, LGPEP rewards local governments for undertaking significant and innovative actions that reduce the property tax burden confronting residents.  The projects recognized today are estimated by applicants to generate $38.2 million in combined annual savings. In accepting an award, these local governments commit to measuring and sustaining the financial impact of these savings. 

The Awards were as follows: 

City of Corning, $279,575.00, Fire Department Efficiency Initiative

Town of Gates, $710,000.00, Health Insurance Consolidation Project

Town of East Hampton, $536,425.00 Re-engineering of Town Government

Village of Liberty, $99,375.00, operations streamlining

Essex County, $244,881.40, Creation of the Office of Community Resources

Madison County, $1,615,724.00, Home Care Services Privatization

Town of Alden, $138,905.00, Town Clerk/Tax Receiver Consolidation Project

Nassau County, $5,000,000.00, Police Department Personnel Reduction and Precinct Consolidation Initiative

Town of New Castle, $194,313.14, Once per Week Garbage Collection

Town of Bethlehem, $776,107.36, Departmental Restructuring of Payment System and Maintenance Staff

Essex County, $984,250.00, Privatization of the Horace Nye Nursing Home

Town of Alden, $72,578.20, Innovative Employee Health Insurance Program

City of Rochester, $1,857,183.30, Neighborhood & Business Development Consolidation and Efficiencies Program

For additional information concerning the grant program please call the Office of the LGPEP Program Manager, (518) 473-3355.

Article 75 petition seeking to confirm an arbitration award holding the current CBA preserved the rights retirees obtained under previous CBAs granted by court

Article 75 petition seeking to confirm an arbitration award holding the current CBA preserved the rights retirees obtained under previous CBAs granted by court

Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Lieutenants Benevolent Assn., 2013 NY Slip Op 50953(U), Supreme Court, New York County [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Due to budget constraints, the Port Authority, effective January 1, 2011, discontinued its free E-Z Pass program available to all Port Authority retirees. As a result, the Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Association [LBA] filed a grievance under the arbitration provision in its Collective Bargaining Agreement, [CBA] claiming that the Port Authority had violated the CBA by discontinuing the E-Z pass program for retirees.

The Arbitrator framed the issues as follows:

1. Is the grievance substantively arbitrable?

2. If so, did the Employer violated [sic] the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) by discontinuing on or about December 2010 or January 2011 free passage and parking at Port Authority facilities for retirees of the bargaining unit?

3. If so, what shall the remedy be?

The relevant CBA was agreed to in April 2005, effective retroactive to January 21, 2003, through to January 20, 2010. It contained a "Savings Clause," which provides that wages, benefits and conditions of employment "shall remain in full force and effect until a new Memorandum of Agreement [i.e., CBA] is executed." The provision relied upon by the LBA provided “for distribution of free passes for ‘permanent and project employees, retired employees, and employees on military leave for use at tunnels, bridges and some air terminals.’" Retired Lieutenants were provided with free passage “in the form of E-Z Passes.”

Arbitrator Howard C. Edelman found in the LBA's favor, ruling that the Port Authority had "violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement by discontinuing on or about December 2011 free passage and parking for retirees of the bargaining unit." The Port Authority was directed to reinstate the free passage and parking, and reimburse retirees for the monies they had expended on passage and parking since the program was terminated.

The Port Authority filed an appeal pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR seeking to vacate the award. It contended that the Arbitrator exceeded his powers in ruling that free passage should be applicable to all LBA retirees, because the issue before the Arbitrator was limited to those employees who retired under the CBA 2003-2010 CBA. Accordingly, the Port Authority contended that it was error to apply the Arbitrator’s ruling to all “LBA retirees” and argued that the court should modify the award so as to limit the benefit to employees in the negotiating unit retiring between 2003 and 2010.

Judge Anil C. Singh said the Arbitrator had acknowledged the Port Authority’s argument in the Award but found that under Savings Clause which provided that, "all clauses of the contract ... continue in full force and effect' after the expiration of the [CBA]" and that the CBA thus "requires the continuation of the retiree benefit in question until the parties modify it in collective bargaining."

Judge Singh found that the Arbitrator had not exceeded his power by including pre-2003 retirees in the award where the arbitration was conducted pursuant to the 2003-2010 CBA.

Citing Riverbay Corp. (Local 32-E, S.E.I.V. AFL-CIO), 91 AD2d 509, the court said that “An arbitrator exceeds his or her power by giving ‘a totally irrational construction to the contractual provisions in dispute,’ so as to effectively rewrite the parties' contract.” The court then held that the Arbitrator did not exceed his powers, or rewrite the parties' agreement, when he found that the right to free E-Z Passes and parking applied to more than just retirees who had retired under the 2003-2010 CBA. The decision indicates that the language in CBA’s “Savings Clause” retained the right of retirees from previous MOAs to receive these benefits.

Concluding that the current CBA preserved the rights retirees obtained under previous CBAs, Judge Singh ruled that Arbitrator was not acting irrationally or exceeding his powers when he applied his ruling to past LBA retirees and confirm the LBA’s petition to confirm the award.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_50953.htm