Employees alleging that they were required to perform out-of-title work must show they perform the minimum baseline requirements of the title

Employees alleging that they were required to perform out-of-title work must show they perform the minimum baseline requirements of the title
Matter of Brynien v Governor's Off. of Empl. Relations, 2010 NY Slip Op 09329, Appellate Division, Third Department

Kenneth Brynien, as President of the New York State Public Employees Federation, filed out-of-title grievances with Office of Mental Health (hereinafter OMH), challenging the full-time assignments of the employees to perform duties at two OMH facilities where they were employed.

The employees hold civil service positions classified in other than “Treatment Team Leader.”

The out-of-title grievances alleged that the employees had been improperly assigned to perform and had been performing the duties of a Treatment Team Leader [TTL], Salary Grade M-1, a title designated “managerial” for the purposes of collective bargaining in violation of the relevant collective bargaining agreement.

After unsuccessful administrative appeals, Brynien initiated two CPLR Article 78 proceedings challenging the administrative determinations.

Supreme Court dismissed both petitions and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower courts “well-reasoned written decision”

The Appellate Division said "Out-of-title work, other than that performed on an emergency basis, is prohibited by Civil Service Law §61(2)" and, in this instance, by Article 17 of the governing collective bargaining agreement.

As to the merits of the Article 78 petitions, the court said that its review of out-of-title work grievances focuses on “whether the new duties are appropriate to [the affected employees' job] titles and/or are similar in nature to, or a reasonable outgrowth of, the duties listed in [their respective] job specifications." Further, said the court, "Judicial review of [the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations’*] determination in this context is limited to whether it is arbitrary, capricious or without any rational basis."

The Appellate Division explained that although an employee need not be assigned the full range of duties of a higher salary grade to be performing out-of-title work, here the dispositive inquiry is whether the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations rationally concluded that the affected employees did not meet the minimum baseline requirements of TTLs such that the grieved duties are appropriate to their job titles and are similar in nature to, or a reasonable outgrowth of, the duties listed in their job specifications.

Holding that in its view GOER did so, the Appellate Division dismissed Brynien’s appeal.

* The Governor’s Office of Employee Relations was the ultimate administrative appellate body in this instance.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_09329.htm

Failure of employee to provide a urine sample within the time limits set by federal regulations deemed a refusal to submit to the drug test

Failure of employee to provide a urine sample within the time limits set by federal regulations deemed a refusal to submit to the drug test
NYC Department of Sanitation v C.L.*, OATH Index #760/11

The New York City Department of Sanitation requires employees who are holders of commercial drivers' licenses to submit to random drug testing.

A sanitation worker, C.L. was charged with refusing to submit to a random test as a result of his failing to provide a sufficient urine sample within the time frame allotted by federal regulations.

C.L. then had five days from the date of the test to submit documentation to the Medical Review Officer (MRO) to show why he was unable to provide the required sample within the time period set by the federal regulation.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid Addison found that the Department had proved the refusal charge. Although Judge Addison indicated that she “was not entirely convinced by the MRO's rationale for rejecting the medical reports submitted by C.L., C.L. failed to present any expert testimony to controvert it.

Thus, the ALJ concluded, C.L.’s failure to produce sufficient urine within the time allotted constituted a refusal as charged.

In addition, Judge Addison found that the immediate follow-up steps taken by C.L. whereupon he sought an independent urine test, rebutted the inference that his urine sample would have tested positive. Accordingly she recommended that C.L. be suspended for 25 days without pay.

* C.L. held a commercial driver’s license and was subject to both Sanitation Department and federal regulations that require random drug testing. Pursuant to such federal regulations, C.L.’s name was been withheld from publication in Judge Addison's determination.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-760.pdf

Criticism of employee performance serving pursuant to a contract with a private entity

Criticism of employee performance serving pursuant to a contract with a private entity
Brackman v City of New York, Supreme Court, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

If a public employee does not have tenure, he or she may be dismissed at any time, for any reason, or for no reason, provided that the termination does not otherwise constitute an unlawful act on the part of the public employer. At best, such an individual may demand, and receive, a name clearing hearing if there has been publication of the alleged disparaging remarks concerning his or her work performance.

Being successful in clearing one’s name via a name-clearing clearing hearing, however, does not entitle the individual to reinstatement to his or her former position.

The Brackman case involved a novel variation of this type of situation -- the rights of a terminated employee of an independent contractor performing work for a public entity.

The contractor, Data Industries, was to perform certain data processing related services for the City of New York. City officials were extremely critical of the work being done under the contract by Brackman, one of Data Industries’ employees.

City officials complained that Brackman was not performing satisfactorily and did not provided the services the City expected. This criticism resulted in Brackman’s dismissal from the project and from Data Industries.

Brackman sued for damages for the alleged defamation arising in the context of his work as a computer consultant for New York City’s Department of Employment. The court granted the City motion to dismiss Brackman’s petition for two reasons:

1. Brackman had signed a release in exchange for a sum of money when he was terminated by Data Industries covering “all actions, causes of action [and] suits [...] by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever against Data Industries, the City of New York, the Department of Employment and its Management Information System Division;” and

2. The allegedly defamatory remarks are “quintessential expressions of opinion,” which are fully protected by the state and federal constitutions.

Justice Stallman said that all of the statements concerning Brackman’s abilities and his performance on the project use loose, figurative language, and none of the statements are objectively capable of being characterized as true or false.

Citing Williams v Varig Brazilian Airlines, 169 AD2d 434, the court said that “Disparaging remarks concerning a person’s job performance are routinely held to be constitutionally protected opinion.”

Dismissing Brackman’s petition, Justice Stallman said that as an at-will employee in the private sector there was no tort liability for wrongful or abusive discharge.

The lesson gleaned from Brackman is that as an at-will employee -- the private sector equivalent of a provisional or temporary public employee -- Brackman did not even have a right to a name clearing hearing, much less the right to sue the City or it officials for damages after being fired by the Data Industries.

Determining membership in a negotiating unit for the purposes of collective bargaining

Determining membership in a negotiating unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
Rockland County v Federation of Teachers Local 1817, 275 AD2d 413

Clearly the incumbents of positions in the negotiating unit are covered by collective bargaining contracts negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law.

Is an agreement between the parties to include a particular individual in the negotiating unit if the position filled by that individual is not included in the negotiating unit enforceable?

This was one of the issues considered by the Appellate Division when Rockland County attempted to obtain a stay of arbitration of a grievance demanded by an employee of the Rockland County Community College, Patricia Harnett.

Harnett was employed by the college in a position funded by a grant. Because she was paid from grant monies, she was excluded from the negotiating unit represented by Local 1817. Therefore her employment was not covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the college and Local 1817.

According to the Local, however, Harnett and the president of the college had agreed that she should be included as a member of the negotiating unit.* This, the Local argued, meant that she was covered by the Taylor Law agreement between the college and Local 1817.

Harnett’s status became an issue when she filed a complaint under the grievance procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement and ultimately demanded that the issue be submitted to arbitration.

Rockland objected and attempted to obtain a stay of arbitration pursuant to Section 7503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. A State Supreme Court justice ruled that Harnett’s grievance had to be submitted to arbitration.

The Appellate Division reversed, rejecting Local 1817’s argument that Harnett was covered by the collective bargaining agreement as a result of a settlement entered into by Harnett and the president of Rockland Community College.

The Appellate Division characterized the settlement as ultra vires since it had not been ratified by the college’s board of trustees.

In commercial law, the term ultra vires is used to describe acts beyond the scope of the power of a corporation. Here the Appellate Division used the term to describe the absence of authority on the part of the college president to agree to include Harnett within the negotiating unit without specific approval by the college’s board of trustees.

This suggests that the Appellate Division would have been less troubled by Local 1817’s argument had the college trustees ratified the agreement between the college president and Harnett.

In the alternative, assume that the agreement between the president and Harnett provided that the terms and conditions of her employment were to be determined by the collective bargaining contract instead of deeming her to be a member of the collective bargaining unit, i.e., the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement were incorporated by reference into her contract of employment by the college. If such a contract of employment was duly ratified by the appointing authority, Harnett might have been able to sue for breach of contract when her demand for arbitration was rejected by the college.

* Presumably Harnett’s position would have been included in the negotiating unit but for the source of funding for the item.

New York City Civil Service Commission’s ruling applicant qualified controls

New York City Civil Service Commission’s ruling applicant qualified controls
City of New York v Civil Service Commission, Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 0401706 [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

The New York Policy Department (NYPD) challenged a determination by the New York City Civil Service Commission holding that Hope Mahoney was qualified for appointment to the position of police officer with the Department.

Having passed the written test, Mahoney was also required to submit to a psychological examination to determine her fitness for duty as a police officer. After conducting an evaluation, the Police Department’s psychologist concluded that Mahoney was “psychologically unsuited for police work.”

Mahoney then saw her own her medical expert, Dr. Richard E. Ovens. Ovens conducted his own psychological evaluation of Mahoney. Dr. Ovens’ evaluation described Mahoney as “possess[ing] the requisite intellectual abilities, emotional resources and coping skills to meet the demands and stresses associated with the unique duties of a . . . police officer.”

In response to this, the Police Department’s expert, Dr. Arko, reviewed Dr. Ovens’ evaluation. Dr. Arko’s conclusion: Mahoney should be rejected for appointment to the position of police officer based on “poor judgment and impulse control” as evidenced by her two job terminations, and her driving record. NYPD forwarded Dr. Arko’s report to the New York City Civil Service Commission (CSC).

After reviewing all the records submitted to it, the CSC decided that a hearing was appropriate in order to resolve the factual issues related to Mahoney’s disqualification. Ultimately the CSC issued a decision reversing the NYPD’s disqualification of Mahoney, and advised NYPD that
“having reviewed the entire record and considering the arguments and testimony presented at the hearing, we conclude as follows. . . Having heard from both experts, we find that Dr. Ovens [sic] evaluation and assessment of the appellant was accurate and therefore more credible.”

NYPD filed an Article 78 petition challenged the decision of the CSC, contending that CSC’s determination was irrational in crediting the testimony of Dr. Oven’s over the testimony of Dr. Chiu-Palmer, and the other medical experts employed by NYPD.

According to the decision, “Dr. Ovens conducted a more comprehensive evaluation of Mahoney than Chiu-Palmer,” and that CSC rationally credited Dr. Ovens’ testimony over that of Chiu Palmer’s “based on his stronger educational background in psychology and his thirty years experience as a police officer.”

The court pointed out that the CSC is empowered by Section 813(d)* of the New York City Charter “to hear and decide appeals of petitioners’ determinations as to employment eligibility.” However, said the court, although CSC’s determinations of such appeals are subject to judicial review under Article 78, in such instances review by the court “is limited to the question of whether the decision of the administrative agency was arbitrary or capricious or irrational.”

In addition, citing Smith v. City of New York, 228 AD2d 381, leave to appeal denied, 89 NY2d 806, the court commented that “it has been held that “wide discretion is afforded to civil service commissions in determining fitness of candidates. The exercise of that discretion is to be sustained unless it has been clearly abused.”

Accordingly, said the court, “Under this standard, there is no basis for overturning the CSC determination that Mahoney is qualified to be a police officer. Specifically, it cannot be said that the CSC’s decision to credit the opinion of Dr. Ovens over that of Chiu-Palmer was irrational in light of Ovens’ substantial qualifications, including his doctorate in clinical psychology, his thirty years of experience as a police officer, and his practice which involves the treatment of traumatized police officers.”

NYPD’s appeal was dismissed and the Civil Service Commission’s determination upheld.

* The NY City Charter provides that: the civil service commission shall have the power to hear and determine appeals by any person aggrieved by any action or determination of the commissioner. . . and may affirm, modify or reverse such action or determination when there exists a rational basis in the record to support the decision.