Payment for vacation credits upon resignation

Payment for vacation credits upon resignation
Karp v North Country Community College, 258 AD2d 775

After 15 years of service, Robert Karp resigned from his position with the North Country Community College in 1997. When the college refused to pay him for accrued vacation credits he claimed he accrued between 1982 and 1985, he sued.

Although Karp admitted that the college lacked express authority to pay him for his unused vacation time, he nevertheless claimed that he was entitled to such payments because the college had paid other employees for unused vacation time in the past. Karp argued that this meant that the college was obligated to pay him for such credits as well.

Karp claimed that in 1986 two employees received compensation for their unused vacation time when they resigned. He also referred to a 1986 memorandum written by respondent’s then-Dean of Administration recognizing that the school’s policy respecting unused vacation time needed clarification and that, in the interim, respondent would honor its past practice for vacation time accrued up until August 31, 1985.

Supreme Court said that if not expressly authorized by statute, local law, resolution or pursuant to a contract term, a public employee may not be paid for unused vacation time, citing General Municipal Law Section 92. The court noted that payments made without such authority are deemed public gifts, prohibited by Article VIII, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution.

The Appellate Division agreed, commenting that “the mere fact that [the college] despite lacking authority to do so, may have on prior occasions compensated employees for unused vacation time does not validate [Karp’s] claim. Express authorization being required, prior conduct cannot satisfy the express statutory authorization needed to form a basis for recovery against a public body.”

Also noted was the fact that in 1986 the college advised Karp that he should develop a plan to use any remaining vacation time during that academic year.
NYPPL

Educator terminated before the end of the probationary period

Educator terminated before the end of the probationary period
Strax v Rockland County BOCES, 257 AD2d 578

The Rockland County Board of Cooperative Educational Services dismissed Carol Strax, a probationary administrative assistant, from her position. Strax sued, seeking a court order reinstating her to the position.

The Appellate Division rejected her appeal, commenting that “it is well established that a board of education has an unfettered right to terminate the employment of a teacher or administrator during his or her probationary period, without a hearing, unless that person establishes that his or her employment was terminated for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of a statutory proscription.”

According to the ruling, Strax did not allege that the BOCES had terminated her probationary employment for a constitutionally impermissible reason nor did she demonstrate that it failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Education Law Section 3031 or otherwise acted in violation of a statutory proscription.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that under the circumstances the Supreme Court properly ruled that Strax’s termination was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
NYPPL

Employee terminated after refusing to work overtime

Employee terminated after refusing to work overtime
Mack v Comm. of Labor, 257 AD2d 828

One of the requirements of toll collector Tijuana R. Mack’s employment was that she occasionally was needed to work overtime before or after her regular shift. However, she declined to accept a number of overtime assignments and was given a number of written warnings.

After she once again refused to accept an overtime assignment, she was discharged. When she applied for unemployment insurance, her claim was rejected on the grounds that her refusing the overtime assignment constituted disqualifying misconduct.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s determination, holding that “an employee’s refusal to accept reasonable overtime work assignments when he or she has agreed to do so at the time of hiring can constitute disqualifying misconduct” for the purposes of qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits.
NYPPL

Unemployment insurance benefit adjusted to reflect retirement allowance

Unemployment insurance benefit adjusted to reflect retirement allowance
Licciardello v Comm. of Labor, 255 AD2d 850

Marie Licciardello left her teaching position with the City of New York. She later began to receive payments from her pension fund at the rate of $250 per week. In addition, Licciardello was receiving unemployment insurance benefits at the rate of $300 per week.

However, Section 600.7 of the Labor Law provides that an unemployment insurance claimant’s benefit rate is to be reduced in cases where the employer has contributed to the employee’s pension fund.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board held that Licciardello’s unemployment benefit rate was subject to reductions by the amount of 50% of her pension payments, reflecting her employer’s contribution of over 50% of the funding of her pension plan. In addition, the board said that Licciardello was liable for, and had to repay, $3,250 for the overpayment of benefits.

The board determined that the actuarial value of Licciardello’s pension was $138,000 and that her contributions were $33,000, about a quarter of the actuarial value of the pension.

The Appellate Division said that this constituted substantial evidence supporting the board’s ruling that “her employer contributed over half of the actuarial value of [Licciardello’s] pension, thereby triggering the statutory reduction in benefits imposed by the Board.”
NYPPL

Determining if a demand for arbitration was timely filed

Determining if a demand for arbitration was timely filed
Matter of Town of N. Hempstead v Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 08121, decided on November 9, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department

Two days after the Town of North Hempstead terminated the employment of an employee CSEA advised the Town that it intended to proceed to arbitration. Two months after the employee’s date of dismissal CSEA submitted a demand for arbitration to the American Arbitration Association [AAA] challenging the employee’s dismissal.

North Hampstead filed an Article 75 petition to stay the arbitration contending that under the parties' collective bargaining agreement as well as a subsequent stipulation entered into between the parties, the demand for arbitration to the AAA had to be made within 10 days after the termination of the employee's employment.* The Town’s theory: CSEA’s demand for arbitration was untimely and it was thus entitled to a permanent stay of arbitration.

Although Supreme Court granted the Town’s petition, holding that "[t]here is no precedent for finding that notice to the [Town] of an intent to arbitrate also constitutes timely notice to the AAA as required by the [2008 stipulation],” the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s decision.

In this instance, said the court, the relevant provisions state that "[w]ithin ten (10) days after . . . discharge . . . only the Union may proceed to Disciplinary Arbitration by written notification to . . . the Town Attorney, and in accordance with the rules and requirements of the AAA as they relate to Labor Arbitration."** This language, said the Appellate Division, “does not require that a demand for arbitration be made to the AAA within that 10-day period.” It simply requires that the Town be notified of the union’s intent within such period.

The court explained that the Stipulation, requiring that a demand for arbitration be made to the AAA within 10 days, refers only to those situations where there has been a Step 1 disciplinary procedure. Here there was “no such Step 1 procedure” making the 10-day rule for making a demand for arbitration to the AAA inapplicable.

Finally, said the court, “to the extent that the subject language governing the time to demand arbitration may be ambiguous, it should be resolved in favor of the employee's right to proceed to arbitration.”

* The Appellate Division noted that the Stipulation specifically provides that the Agreement's time "deadlines . . . are conditions precedent to arbitration." Rejecting CSEA argument that the issue of whether its demand for arbitration was timely made to AAA was for the arbitrator to determine, the court, citing Matter of All Metro Health Care Serv., Inc. v Edwards, 57 AD3d 892, ruled that a court, rather than an arbitrator, was to decide the matter.

** AAA rules do not impose any time limits for filing a demand for arbitration

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_08121.htm
NYPP: