The school board rather than an arbitrator makes ultimate decision regarding tenure

The school board rather than an arbitrator makes ultimate decision regarding tenure

Liverpool Faculty Association v. Liverpool Central School District, 52 N.Y.2d 1038

The New York State Court of Appeals has ruled that although the arbitrator had interpreted a collective bargaining agreement to limit the district superintendent’s power concerning tenure recommendations, the authority of the School Board to make the ultimate decision to grant or withhold tenure was not in any way impaired.

The decision of the arbitrator was not violative of public policy as set forth in Sections 2509, 2573, 3012 and 6212 of the Education Law according to the Court.

The award did not interfere with the decision-making powers of the School Board although it did require the District to retain the probationary teacher for an additional year so that her performance could be evaluated as provided in the contract.

The court noted that a different conclusion might result if the case involved a city having a population of 400,000 or more as the recommendations of a district superintendent regarding tenure in such a situation are binding on the School Board (Section 2573, Education Law).

A question of standing

A question of standing

Burke v. Bahou, 91 A.D.2d 705

When an employee brought suit contending that the determination of the State Civil Service Commission regarding a reclassification was arbitrary, the Appellate Division dismissed the action on the grounds that the Burke did not have standing to bring the suit because he was not the incumbent of the reclassified position.

The court indicated that only the employee occupying the reclassified position or the appointing authority concerned could challenge the determination, citing Section 120 of the Civil Service Law.

Provisional employee loses bid for permanent appointment

Provisional employee loses bid for permanent appointment

Haynes v. Chautauqua County, 55 NY2d 814

In Haynes the court held that reachable for appointment from the eligible list does not serve to give a provisional employee any right to selection for the permanent appointment.

Haynes had been removed from the position about a month following the certification of the list and had sued for reinstatement.

The decision indicated that Section 65.3 of the Civil Service Law permitted termination of a provisional within two months and contrasted the situation with that in Roulett v. Hempstead, 40 AD2d 611, where a provisional employee, eligible for permanent appointment, was retained in the absence of a three name eligible list in excess of the probationary period for the position.

The Court also noted that Haynes did not become a “probationary employee” by operation of law and could be removed without notice and hearing.

In contrast, the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court and held that a provisional employee does have a right to a permanent appointment. In LaSota v. Green, 53 NY2d 491 ruling that unlike Haynes, LaSota, a provisional for more than nine months and first on the eligible list, obtained a permanent appointment by operation of law when he was retained as a provisional after the establishment of the list. 

The distinction here was that in LaSota there was no mandatory list while in Haynes the list consisted of more than three candidates interested in the position. 

Accordingly, in LaSota the provisions of Civil Service Law Section 65.4 rather than 65.3, applied. 

Thus the LaSota determination, although extending Roulett [see 40 AD2d 611], is consistent the determination in Haynes. The Court took special note of the nine-month limitation on provisional appointments contained in Section 65.2 of the Civil Service Law.

Governor Cuomo and PBA of New York State announce tentative contract agreement

Governor Cuomo and PBA of New York State announce tentative contract agreement

Source: Office of the Governor

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and Manuel M. Vilar, President of the Police Benevolent Association of New York State, on December 23, 2011 announced a contract agreement between the state and the labor union representing New York State's University Police, Park Police, EnCon Officers and Forest Rangers.

The agreement resolves outstanding wage and contractual issues dating to 2005 and provides the officers with a retroactive wage increase adjustment, ensures protections against layoffs, and offers health benefits commensurate with other state bargaining units. The agreement provides for zero percent wage increases for 2011-2013, a 2% increase in 2014, 9 days of deficit reduction leave, and adjustments to the health insurance premium.


The Agency Law Enforcement Services Unit (ALES) is composed of University police, Park Police, EnCon Officers and Forest Rangers. They have not had a contract since 2005 and were in arbitration for the years 2005-2007.

Highlights of the tentative agreement, which will require ratification by the full PBANYS membership, include:

· Zero percent wage increases for 2011-2013, a 2% increase in 2014,

· A $1,000 retention bonus paid out $775 in the third year and $225 in the fourth year

· Deficit Reduction Leave of five days this fiscal year and four days next fiscal year

· Retroactive payments that are scheduled to be paid in two installments -- one this fiscal year and one next fiscal year before the end of the calendar year.

· Health insurance premium share increase by 6% for both individual and families, making the share 16% for individuals and 31% for family premiums.

· Random drug testing and drug testing for probationary employees in addition to reasonable suspicion testing.

· A labor/management committee to review all leave taken by officers, including annual, personal, sick, workers compensation, and the manner of such use. Recommendations will be made to the President of the Union and the GOER Director for implementation.

· A health plan opt out so officers can opt out through a spouse/partner to a non-State health plan. Under the opt out, participants would receive $1,000 individual/$3,000 family

· Officers will receive broad layoff protection. Workforce reductions due to management decisions to close or restructure facilities authorized by legislation, SAGE recommendations or material or unanticipated changes in the state's fiscal circumstances are not covered by this limitation.