Plaintiff held to have waived any right to personally proceed with his grievance once he authorized his Union to handle the grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement

Plaintiff appealed a Federal District Court’s dismissal of his complaint against International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Teamsters Local Union No. 210 [collectively herein "Union"] and United Airlines, Inc. [United] for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Plaintiff had secured the Union’s representation to challenge his termination from his job as an airline technician for United Airlines but after advocating for his claim through the initial steps of the contract grievance procedure, Union concluded that Plaintiff's grievance was not meritorious and declined to pursue it further. 

In his appeal before the U. S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [Second Circuit], Plaintiff argued that the District Court erred in determining that he did not separately have the individual right to pursue that grievance in arbitration pursuant to the Railway Labor Act [RLA], 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq., after the Union declined to go beyond the initial steps it had taken on behalf of Plaintiff after deciding Plaintiff's grievance lacked merit.

Plaintiff had been employed by United for almost 25 years prior to his being fired for timekeeping violations on June 11, 2024. During his employment, Plaintiff was a member of IBT’s affiliated local union, Local 210. The IBT and Local 210 constitutions contain substantially similar language regarding the relationship between a Union member and the Union for purposes of employment grievances whereby the Union and its officers, business representatives, and agents may decline to process any grievance, complaint, difficulty, or dispute if in their reasonable judgment such grievance, complaint, or dispute lacks merit. 

Under the terms of the relevant CBA, “[i]f the decision of the Company’s representative is not acceptable to the Union, the decision may be appealed by the Union to the System Board of Adjustment,” which is composed of two members designated by United and two members designated by the Union. After Plaintiff’s termination, the Union filed a grievance with United on his behalf pursuant to the relevant CBA’s grievance procedures. The grievance form, signed by Plaintiff states, “I hereby authorize the Union to settle my grievance as they deem proper, and I agree to accept and be bound by the settlement agreed to by the Union or its designees.” 

The Union subsequently notified Plaintiff that after a “full legal review” of Plaintiff’s grievance, and “based on [the Union’s] attorney’s legal opinion that any grievance on behalf of [Plaintiff] will be denied and unlikely to be sustained in a board of arbitration,” the Union “declined to pursue this grievance.” 

Plaintiff next filed the instant lawsuit, seeking;

(1) A declaratory judgment that, as an airline employee, he has the right to arbitrate his grievance as an individual, with or without the Union’s participation; and 

2) An order compelling such arbitration before a single arbitrator. 

In granting Unions’ motions to dismiss the District Court concluded that the RLA does not provide an individual right for airline employees to arbitrate a grievance and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. 

Union had contended that the RLA provides no such right and, even if it did, Plaintiff waived it by entrusting the Union to settle his grievance in this case. The Second Circuit said it agreed with the Union, also concluding that Plaintiff waived any such right to individually pursue his grievance in this case by ceding it to the Union.

In the words of the Second Circuit: "we conclude that [Plaintiff ceded his grievance authority to the Union through his membership in the Union and by signing the grievance form, thus waiving any right to pursue arbitration as an individual under the RLA (assuming, without deciding, that such a right exists)," noting that "the IBT and Local 210 constitutions plainly provide that the Union has the authority to decline to process member grievances it finds to be without merit". 

The Second Circuit's decision observed that the "CBA interlocks with this provision, providing an appeal to the SBA through the Union and states that, if the SBA deadlocks, 'the Union may appeal the case to arbitration.'” 

Further and "most concretely", the Second Circuit's decision pointed out that the Plaintiff "had signed grievance form, specific to his termination grievance, clearly accepts the Union’s authority here, vesting the Union with full authority to act on his behalf". 

In particular, the Second Circuit noted that Plaintiff had agreed to “accept and be bound by” the Union’s exercise of its discretion in handling his grievance", and the Second Circuit said "we will enforce that agreement here". 

ln the words of the Court, Plaintiff "waived that right in connection with his termination by ceding it to the Union and, thus, his complaint failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) ", affirming the  judgment of the Federal District Court.

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State Municipal and School audits released

On September 30, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the release of the following local government and school audits.

Click on the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

Transparency of Fiscal Activities in Towns - Complete, accurate and timely financial information enables governing boards to monitor a town’s financial condition, make informed financial decisions, establish future tax levies, plan for long-term operating and capital needs and demonstrate responsible stewardship of public resources. The Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) selected 18 towns across nine regions to review their fiscal year 2024 annual financial report (AFR) filing status. Auditors determined that 12 towns did not file their AFR with OSC, five towns filed late and one town filed on time. Auditors also determined eight of the 18 towns selected did not maintain complete and up to date accounting records and that most of the boards did not perform annual audits.

Big Indian-Oliverea Fire District – Board Oversight (Ulster County) - The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. Auditors identified deficiencies in the board’s policies, budgeting practices, claims auditing, Length of Service Award Program administration, AFR filings and compliance with training requirements.

Broome County – Court and Trust Funds - Auditors reviewed the directors’, county clerk’s and Surrogate’s Court’s processes, procedures and records for the receipt and management of court and trust funds, as well as estates in the directors’ custody. The director did not establish adequate procedures that ensured all court and trust funds were received, accounted for and properly reported. Specifically, reconciliations were not performed in a timely manner among the director, county clerk and Surrogate’s Court clerk. 

City of Fulton – Clerk-Chamberlain’s Records and Reports (Oswego County) - While the city had two different clerk-chamberlains during the audit period, the former clerk-chamberlain did not maintain accurate and up-to-date financial records and, therefore, did not properly report the city’s financial position and activity to the council each month or file the city’s 2022 and 2023 AFRs with OSC in a timely manner. The current clerk-chamberlain has made progress towards improving the records, but the errors auditors identified during the audit have not been corrected and the city’s 2024 and 2025 AFRs have not been filed.

Greene Central School District – Building Access (Chenango, Broome and Cortland Counties) - District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned key cards in the system. As a result, there was a potential risk for unauthorized access to district school buildings, compromising building security and safety for students, teachers, staff and visitors.

Lawrence Union Free School District – Information Technology (IT) (Nassau County) - Although district training records support that officials generally provided IT security awareness training to staff, officials did not adequately manage all nonstudent network user accounts. As a result, officials cannot be assured that district IT systems are secured and protected against unauthorized use.

Town of Macedon – Ambulance Service Financial Operations (Wayne County) - The board and officials did not adequately oversee and manage the town’s ambulance service’s financial operations. The board did not ensure ambulance service charges were properly billed, collected and reconciled; authorize billing write-offs; adopt realistic budgets; develop long-term financial or capital plans; ensure only authorized claims were paid; and ensure emergency medical technicians (EMTs) were paid at board-approved rates. Officials also did not maintain complete and up-to-date financial and inventory records or comply with certain procurement requirements.

Village of Moravia – Procurement (Cayuga County) - Village officials did not always seek competition when procuring goods and services in accordance with statutory requirements set forth in state law and the village’s procurement policy. Specifically, village officials did not have supporting documentation indicating that they sought competition for goods and services totaling more than $1.3 million and procured the goods and services in the most economical manner.

City of Oneida – Bank and Receivable Control Account Reconciliations (Madison County) - City officials did not properly reconcile bank accounts or receivable control accounts for real property taxes and water and sewer rents. As a result, officials lacked assurance that financial records were accurate and complete and that errors, discrepancies or irregularities in collections, disbursements and amounts owed to the city would be identified and corrected in a timely manner.

Town of Rotterdam – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Schenectady County) - The board did not provide for a timely annual audit of the town’s financial records for fiscal year 2024. In addition, the town comptroller did not prepare and file the 2024 AFR with OSC, as required by state law. Furthermore, the town comptroller did not provide the board with complete, accurate and reliable monthly financial reports. Had the board received complete, accurate and reliable monthly reports and ensured a timely annual audit of the town’s books, records and documents, it may have identified and potentially helped remedy these issues.

Twin District Volunteer Fire Company – Credit Cards (Erie County) - Company officials did not always ensure that credit card purchases were properly supported and made for appropriate company purposes. Although the company’s credit card policy assigned responsibility for monitoring credit card activity to the board of directors, the board did not review credit card purchases, statements or supporting documentation before approving payment. Instead, the board relied on card holders to monitor usage and review and approve their own purchases.

Town of Williamstown – Supervisor’s Records and Reports (Oswego County) - The supervisor did not maintain accurate accounting records, provide the board with adequate monthly financial reports and file the town’s AFRs, as required. As a result, the board’s ability to properly and effectively monitor and manage the town’s financial operations and make informed decisions was limited, and the town’s financial standing at year-end was not transparent to the board, town residents, OSC and other interested parties.

Woodhull Fire District – Financial Oversight (Steuben County) - The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. As a result, the board could not ensure that the records and reports that it used to make financial decisions were complete and accurate, which made it difficult for the board to make informed decisions and adequately plan for future expenses.

                                                                          ### 

Terminated individual holding a term appointment challenged her dismissal from the position before her term of office had expired

By resolution dated April 5, 2023, a New York State Incorporated Village [Village] appointed Petitioner as the Village's clerk-treasurer for a term of office set to expire June 30, 2024. By resolution dated May 24, 2023 the Village rescinded the Petitioner's appointment.

Petitioner brought the instant action in Supreme Court challenging the Village's termination of her employment, alleging that her removal "was not properly effectuated in accordance with Public Officers Law §36".* The Village moved pursuant to CPLR §§3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss Plaintiff's  petition, arguing, inter alia, that the proceeding initiated by Plaintiff was barred by the Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel.

A New York State Supreme Court:

1. Granted Plaintiff's petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024, and

2. Denied the motion of the Village pursuant to CPLR §§3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss that branch of the petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024.

 

The Village appealed the Supreme Court's decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment "insofar as appealed from, with costs". 

Citing Joseph v Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 219 AD3d 596, the Appellate Division noted that:

1. "Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a party may move to dismiss a [petition] based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel";

2. "Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding"; and

3. "The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and the party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination".

Noting that to establish "privity" -- a relationship between parties having legal interest in the same right or property -- the Appellate Division's decision explores the connection between the parties which typically must demonstrate that "the interests of the nonparty can be said to have been represented in the prior proceeding" and privity "does not have a technical and well-defined meaning". 

The Appellate Division then observed that privity "is an amorphous concept not easy of application", and privity includes "those who are successors to a property interest, those who control an action although not formal parties to it, those whose interests are represented by a party to the action, and possibly co-parties to a prior action".

Further, the Appellate Division opined that "When the issue of privity is raised, 'courts must carefully analyze whether the party sought to be bound and the party against whom the litigated issue was decided have a relationship that would justify preclusion, and whether preclusion, with its severe consequences, would be fair under the particular circumstances'".

Contrary to the Village's contention, the Appellate Division held that the Village "... failed to demonstrate that the [Petitioner] was in privity with any of the parties [in] a separate proceeding commenced by the clerk-treasurer who preceded the [Petitioner] against, among others, the Village, and that the [Petitioner] was thereby bound by a judgment entered in that proceeding".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the Village failed to establish that the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel barred the instant proceeding and found  that "the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Plaintiff's] petition which was for an award of back pay, entitlements, and benefits from May 24, 2023, to June 30, 2024, and denied that branch of the Village's motion which was pursuant to CPLR [§§]3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss that branch of the [Plaintiff's] petition".

* Public Officers Law §36 provides as follows: "Any town, village, improvement district or fire district officer, except a justice of the peace, may be removed from office by the supreme court for any misconuct [sic], maladministration, malfeasance or malversation in office. An application for such removal may be made by any citizen resident of such town, village, improvement district or fire district or by the district attorney of the county in which such town, village or district is located, and shall be made to the appellate division of the supreme court held within the judicial department embracing such town, village, improvement district or fire district. Such application shall be made upon notice to such officer of not less than eight days, and a copy of the charges upon which the application will be made must be served with such notice".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Plaintiff's filing a timely notice of claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship

Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Westchester County Local #860's, [Local 860]'s collective bargaining agreement [CBA] with the Town  provided, among other things, that seniority shall be the determining factor for selection to a vacant position where all other factors are equal. 

Town created a new general foreman position for which two applicants, A and B, applied. Town selected A for the appointment to the position and Local 860, on behalf of B, filed a grievance challenging the Town' appointing A to the position as provided by the relevant provision's set out in the CBA. 

Ultimately the parties proceeded to non-binding arbitration in accordance with provisions set out in the CBA. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of appointing B to the position, which decision was rejected by the Town.

Local 860 brought an action in Supreme Court challenging the Town's decision and Town moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted the Town's motion and Local 860 appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's ruling, explaining:

1. The filing of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a town arising out of the contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a town and Town Law §65(3) provides that "no action shall be maintained against a town upon or arising out of a contract entered into by the town . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the town clerk within six months after the cause of action shall have accrued"; 

2. In contrast to other notice statutes, "Town Law §65(3) contains no provision allowing the court to excuse noncompliance with its requirements";

3. An exception to Town Law §65(3)'s notice of claim requirement is only applicable where a plaintiff has pleaded an ongoing or continuing violation, "which the complaint in the instant action did not"; and 

4. As the plaintiffs seek both the recovery of damages and equitable relief, "the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent" to the maintenance of the instant action.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Town's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.