Employee may not demand union proceed to arbitration as a matter of right

Employee may not demand union proceed to arbitration as a matter of right

Matter of Hoffman; Board of Education of the City of New York, 84 A.D.2d 840

 

Although it is generally held that only the Union or the Employer have the power to go to arbitration in connection with a contract grievance procedure, employees unhappy with their unions decision not to go to arbitration are now frequently turning to the courts for an order to permit their proceeding against the employer directly.

In Hoffman the Appellate Division ruled that the Union (in this instance the United Federation of Teachers) was not required to seek arbitration after having processed the employee’s grievance through the initial stages of the grievance procedure and received unfavorable results.

The court also said that if an employee wished to proceed directly against an employer when the Union refused to arbitrate, the employee would first have to show that the Union breached its duty of fair representation (i.e.: bad faith, arbitrariness or discriminatory conduct).

Here the employee had sought a benefit from an earlier arbitration award which gave relief for an “interrupted” sabbatical leave.  The employer refused to apply the arbitration award decision claiming that the employee’s application for the benefit was untimely. The Union had refused to arbitrate the question of timeliness after losing at all previous steps of the grievance procedure.

Union official’s advice to employee protected act

Union official’s advice to employee protected act

PERB Case U-5775

The union’s representative advised a co-worker not to answer questions concerning alleged violations of provisions of the “faculty handbook.”

The representative then received a letter, a copy of which was placed into his personnel file, indicating that the “instruction to the employee not to answer (the) question” was considered “insubordination ... and any recurrence ... would result in (a) recommendation ... that disciplinary action be taken.”

PERB ruled that the representative was engaged in a protected activity under the Taylor Law and directed the letter to be withdrawn and not considered for any purpose.

N.B. Although the Union’s representative’s right to give advice is protected, should the advice be incorrect, the employee who follows such advice may expose himself or herself to the risk of charges of misconduct or insubordination.

Retirement membership credit available only to employees

Retirement membership credit available only to employees

Sitrin v. Regan, 90 AD2d 583

Holding that she was an independent contractor and not an employee, the Appellate Division upheld the Employees’ Retirement System’s denial of certain (retroactive) membership service credit claimed by a member.

Citing a number of cases including Erwin v. Regan, 89 A.D.2d 753 [Affd. 58 N.Y.2d 722], the Court rejected Sitrin’s arguments noting that during the period for which membership was claimed she was paid by “voucher,” had no payroll deductions for retirement or social security, did not accrue vacation or sick leave credits and had conceded that the decisions she made were not subject to review.

This is another example of the strict standards applied by ERS in these cases, which standards have survived court tests.

         

Former employee's alleged constructive discharge and continuing violation claims rejected as untimely

Former employee's alleged constructive discharge and continuing violation claims rejected as untimely

Thomas v City of Oneonta, 2011 NY Slip Op 08711, Appellate Division, Third Department

Andrew Thomas, while serving as a City of Oneonta police officer, reported various acts of alleged on-duty misconduct allegedly committed by certain of his fellow officers to his supervisor and then repeated these allegations to the Chief of Police. As a result of an investigation of the officer’s allegations three officers were placed on suspension.

Shortly after Thomas had reported the alleged misconduct he was assigned “to the 4:00 P.M. to midnight shift (instead of his usual day shift), his days off would switch from weekends to midweek and he would be assigned certain additional duties previously performed by one of the suspended officers”

Thomas subsequently told his superior officers that he was being harassed by the suspended officers, contended that he was being punished for reporting the alleged misconduct.

Thomas then resigned from this position with the City of Oneonta Police Department and some time later served a notice of claim on the City [see General Municipal Law §50-e] and then commenced a lawsuit against City pursuant to Civil Service Law §75-b alleging, among other things, that he was the victim of retaliatory personnel actions. The City’s answer contended that Thomas’ action was filed after the Statute of Limitations had expired.

The Appellate Division said that in order to maintain such an action as this, a plaintiff is required to serve a notice of claim upon defendant within 90 days after his or her underlying claims arose and, further, must commence his or her action "within one year after the alleged retaliatory personnel action[s]" took place.

Here, said the court, Thomas’ claim arose when his work schedule and the assignment of additional duties became effective on or about October 6, 2009, but he had not served his notice of claim until February 5, 2010 — well beyond the 90-day statute of limitations period. In addition, the Appellate Division noted that the action was not commenced until November 3, 2010, clearly beyond the controlling one-year statute of limitations.

As to Thomas’ “constructive discharge claim,” the Appellate Division, citing Clark v State of New York, 302 AD2d 942, ruled that that claim “is equally untimely, as such claim arose when he tendered his resignation on November 2, 2009  — the date upon which Thomas "severed his relationship with his former employer" rather that not the date upon which he deemed his resignation to be effective.”

Addressing Thomas’ claim of a “continuous violation,” the court held that the continuing violation doctrine does not operate to toll either of these statute of limitations periods. The Appellate Division explained that, the doctrine "may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08711.htm