Public Sector union did not breach its duty of fair representation

Public Sector union did not breach its duty of fair representation
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2010, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Delsante v. CSEA, ____Misc. 3d____(Richmond Co. June 15, 2010), illustrates how the duty of fair representation in the public sector is similar, though not identical to the private sector. The two differences are the statute of limitations in the public sector (in New York) is 4 months as opposed to 6 months in the private sector. Additionally, the standard is a bit more favorable to unions in the public sector. As the court explained:

“With respect to claims based upon the alleged breach of a duty of fair representation, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants acted "deliberately invidious, arbitrary and founded in bad faith" (Ponticello v. County of Suffolk, 225 AD2d 751, 752 [2d Dept., 1996]; Gordon v. City of New York, 167 AD2d 509, 509-510 [2d Dept., 1990]; Garvin v. NYS Pub. Emply Relations Bd., 168 AD2d 446, 446 [2d Dept., 1990]). Here, the defendants have established that they pursued the avenues available to assist the plaintiff in her grievance but because of her probationary status, the options were limited pursuant to the CSEA Collective Bargaining Agreement § 33.1 which specifically states "[t]he disciplinary procedure provided herein is not applicable to review the removal of an employee from a probationary appointment". Defendants established that Mrs. Zarvos, the Labor Relations Specialist with CSEA, met with the plaintiff; spoke with Mr. Lescinski in an effort to negotiate reinstating the plaintiff and wrote a letter on her behalf but, again, because of her probationary status any further grievance options were limited. As is well established, "a union is not required to carry every grievance to the highest level, and the mere failure on the part of a union to proceed to arbitration with a grievance is not, per se, a breach of its duty of fair representation" (Garvin v. NYS Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 168 AD2d 446, 446-447 [2d Dept., 1990]; Ponticello v. County of Suffolk, 225 AD2d 751, 752 [2d Dept., 1996]).

"In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that the defendants acted in any way deliberately, arbitrary or in bad faith in not pursuing the grievance further and in fact, the plaintiff's failed to present any evidence or dispute the fact that the plaintiff was on probationary status (Garvin v. NYS Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 168 AD2d 446, 447 [2d Dept., 1990][dismissing the petition as no evidence of bad faith, arbitrariness or discriminatory conduct was presented]).”

Mitchell H. Rubinstein
NYPPL

Applying for disability retirement

Applying for disability retirement
Bowns v McCall, 263 AD2d 668
Vecchi v NY State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, 263 AD2d 669

In order to qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits, a member of the New York State Employees’ Retirement System [ERS] must prove:

1. That he or she was injured while at work; and

2. The injury was the result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law [RSSL], i.e., that the injury resulted from an “unexpected and sudden mischance” and not from a risk “inherent in the regular duties of the applicant.”

The first test is relatively simple to demonstrate; the second test -- that the injury resulted from an accident within the meaning of RSSL -- is substantially more difficult to prove.

To meet the second test the employee has the burden of presenting substantial evidence that his or her injury resulted from a “sudden or unexpected event” in contrast to being merely the result of physical exertion undertaken in the performance of his or her routine or regular employment duties.

In both the Bowns and Vecchi cases the Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller’s determination that for the purposes of qualifying for a RSSL disability retirement allowance, the disability suffered by these employees as a result of an on-the-job incident did not result from an accident within the meaning of the RSSL.

The Bowns case

Norman Bowns, a maintenance assistant employed by the State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits claiming a disabling back injury he sustained while he and a co-worker were moving a heavy six-drawer file cabinet away from a wall. Bowns said that the cabinet became stuck and, when pushed, began to tip towards him and he had “catch the cabinet and support its weight in order to keep it from falling on him.”

This, Bowns argued, constituted an accident because “moving a file cabinet was unusual and unrelated to his normal work.” The court sustained the Comptroller’s finding that Bowns’ injury did not result from an accident because Bowns’ supervisor had specifically assigned him to perform this task and Bowns’ job duties included occasional assignments to perform manual labor jobs outside of his regular department.

The Vecchi decision

The Appellate Division also sustained the Comptroller’s rejection of Joanne Vecchi’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Vecchi, a school bus driver/cleaner, testified that she slipped on wet pavement following a rainstorm and although she attempted to balance herself, her foot caught on some gravel and she fell.

The court said that there was substantial evidence that Vecchi’s “injury occurred in the ordinary course of her duties and resulted from her own misstep, not from an unexpected event.” In other words, the mishap was not an accident for the purposes of qualifying for accidental disability retirement benefits.
.

Impartiality of discipline panel members

Impartiality of discipline panel members
Informal Opinions of the Attorney General, 99-21

The impartiality of a disciplinary tribunal is a critical element in any disciplinary action. Further, even the appearance of any impropriety must be avoided. Would it be appropriate for an individual to serve on a disciplinary panel if there was a possibility that his or her son might be called as a witness in the proceeding?

David A. Menken, the Village Attorney, Village/Town of Mount Kisco, asked the Attorney General for his views with respect to such participation after the chief of police advised the board of trustees that disciplinary charges might be filed against one or more Mount Kisco police officers and the son of a trustee, who was a member of the police force, might be called as a witness.

The Attorney General commenced his analysis by noting that Section 5711-q(1) of the Unconsolidated Laws provides that such disciplinary charges must be heard by “at least a majority” of the Board of Trustees and that “even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided in order to maintain public confidence in government.”

The Attorney General concluded that the trustee should recuse herself because “the trustee may not be able to make an impartial judgment solely in the public interest if her son is called as a witness.” While state law does not bar members of the same family from serving in the same governmental unit, public officers have a responsibility to exercise their duties “solely in the public interest.”

The Attorney General said that the difficulty here was that “there was no objective way to verify” that the trustee was able to weigh the credibility of her son fairly and reached an impartial judgment. Under the circumstances, the Attorney General concluded, “there is at least an appearance of impropriety” and thus the trustee should recuse herself and “should not participate in or be present at the hearing, any deliberations, including deliberations conducted during an executive session of the board of trustees, or the determination of the disciplinary proceeding brought by the Mount Kisco Police Department.”

The designation of panel members by the district and the employee should not be viewed as the selection of a partisan representative. Rather they are impartial, quasi-judicial officials.

This point was made in Syquia v Harpursville Central School District, 568 NY2d 263, an "old law" Section 3020-a case. In Syquia, the court observed that a school board and a teacher have a statutory right to select a panel member to serve on the three-member board.

However, the court rejected the argument advanced by the attorney for the Harpursville School District suggesting that "a Section 3020-a hearing is, and is intended to be, something other than a fully impartial fact finding hearing...." The court clearly stated that the panel members selected by the Board of Education and by the teacher are not advocates for the party respectively selecting them, with only the chair of the hearing panel intended to be impartial.

The court said that it was taking its opportunity in this case to dispel any such "misapprehension in educational circles, if such in fact exists." It is likely that the same rationale would be applied to the selection of panel members by employers and employees under the new law.

In contrast to the Syquia decision, the Appellate Division decided in Meehan v Nassau Community College, 243 A.D.2d 12,[motion for leave to appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 814] that "a party-designated arbitrator may in fact be 'partial'" and that by itself this is not grounds for vacating an arbitration award.*

The case involved Nassau County Community College's attempt to overturn two arbitration awards under Article 75. One member of a three-person arbitration panel selected by the parties had direct personal knowledge of the disputed facts underlying the grievances and that this arbitrator actually testified concerning these facts during the arbitration. The Appellate Division had no problem with a panel member testifying at the hearing, holding that "dual capacity of arbitrator and witness may serve as a basis for vacatur only if his behavior in this regard can be properly characterized as constituting 'corruption, fraud, or misconduct' (CPLR 7511[b][1][i])."

* Related cases involving the same parties and issues: Mehan v Nassau Community College, 251 A.D.2d 415; Mehan v Nassau Community College, 251 A.D.2d 416; and Mehan v Nassau Community College, 251 A.D.2d 417.
.

Probationary employee discharged for misrepresenting location of residence at time of employment

Probationary employee discharged for misrepresenting location of residence at time of employment
Munich v Dept. of Public Safety, 262 AD2d 959

A State Supreme Court judge annulled the Lackawanna Department of Public Safety’s dismissal of probationary firefighter Steven J. Munich prior to his completing his probationary period.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling, pointing out that “[i]t is axiomatic that a probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of the reasons for doing so provided the dismissal was not for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law.”

Here, said the court, Munich’s “false representations ... concerning his residence at the time of his employment with the City” provided a sufficient basis for his termination.
.

Substantial evidence supports finding employee was guilty of disciplinary charges filed against him

Substantial evidence supports finding emplyee was guilty of disciplinary charges filed against him
Matter of Drury v Village of N. Syracuse, 2010 NY Slip Op 06944, Decided on October 1, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Phillip Druyry commenced an CPLR Article 78* proceeding in an effort to obtain a court order annulling the determination terminating his employment as Village of North Syracuse Code Enforcement Officer and Fire Marshall following a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to Civil Service Law §75.

The Appellate Division dismissed his appeal, commenting that the disciplinary determination was supported by “substantial evidence, i.e., ‘such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact.’”

The court also concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the penalty of termination of employment does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law because it is not " so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,' " citing Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32.

* Section 76 of the Civil Service Law provides alternative appeal procedures to challenge a Section 75 disciplinary determination: [1] Appeal to the Civil Service Commission having jurisdiction within 20 days of his or her receiving notice of the determination; or [2] A judicial appeal pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06944.htm
NYPPL