Decisions by the Public Employment Relations Board

Decisions by the Public Employment Relations Board
Summaries of rulings

Managerial positions: Incumbents of positions of Campus-wide Academic Deans at a community college are excluded from the faculty negotiating unit in view of their campus-wide responsibility for supervision and formulating policy notwithstanding the fact that other dean positions such as Dean of Students, Dean of Student Development and Dean of Retention Services are currently in the negotiating unit. [Matter of Administrators Association of Erie Community College, 33 PERB 3023]

Change in terms and conditions of employment: The fact that earlier executive orders did not specifically direct employees to report incidents involving criminal activity such as fraud and corruption under threat of disciplinary action for non-compliance now set out in newly promulgated executive orders does not constitute evidence of a change in the terms and conditions of employment subject to mandatory collective bargaining. [Public Employees Federation v State of New York, 33 PERB 3024]

Payroll deductions: Although a letter ruling by the Internal Revenue Service advised the employer that it had the discretion to withhold income tax from the wages of individuals on workers’ compensation leave or receiving benefit pursuant to Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law bi-weekly and reimburse the employee for such deductions annually or elect not to make such deductions, it was an improper practice for the employer to change its procedure from not making such deductions to making bi-weekly deductions without first negotiating the change with the employee organization even where the claim for such benefits was controverted by the employer since the exercise of discretion is generally subject to a duty to bargain. [Matter of Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association, 33 PERB 3025]

Statute of limitation: The statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the injury, here the date when the union first learned of the change in the disciplinary procedure rather than the date on which discipline against an individual was implemented. [Matter of Local 100 TWU, 33 PERB 3026]

Attaining tenure by estoppel

Attaining tenure by estoppel
Lilley v Mills, App. Div., 274 A.D.2d 644

Robert Lilley was employed by the George Junior Republic Union Free School District to replace the district’s part-time per-diem school psychologist for the 1993-1994 academic year. As Lilley was paid on a per-diem basis, he did not receive any of the fringe benefits, such as health insurance, provided to full-time employees.

The record indicated that Lilley was not obligated to report to work on a daily basis nor was the district required to utilize his services on a daily basis or pay him for days he did not work.

In July 1994, Lilley was given a probationary appointment as a full-time school psychologist. He was terminated effective June 30, 1997. Lilley objected to his termination and appealed to the Commissioner of Education claiming that he had attained tenure by estoppel on the basis of his service as a per-diem substitute school psychologist during the 1993-1994 school year. Lilley later amended his claim, contending simply that he was employed full-time by the district commencing October 1993.

The Commissioner of Education dismissed Lilley’s appeal, holding that he had not attained tenure by estoppel. Lilley filed an Article 78 petition seeking to overturn the Commissioner’s determination.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, commenced its analysis by noting that:

Tenure may be acquired by estoppel when a school board accepts the continued services of a teacher or administrator, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny tenure prior to the expiration of the teacher’s probationary term ...,” citing McManus v Hempstead Union Free School District, 87 NY2d 183.

The key to resolving Lilley’s problem: as he had to satisfactorily complete a three-year probationary period to attain tenure, he had the burden of proving that he had acquired tenure by estoppel by showing that he was entitled to probationary service credit for his services during academic 1993-1994.”

The court commented that the Commissioner had indicated that part-time service is generally insufficient to establish tenure by estoppel. After the Commissioner reviewed Lilley’s employment history for academic 1993-1994, he concluded that Lilley failed to meet his burden of proof that he had been employed full-time for this period.

The Appellate Division sustained the Commissioner’s determination, noting the following significant points:

1. The true nature of an individual’s employment status cannot be determined by the label given to it by the District and depends instead on the realities of the position and its accompanying duties.

2. The record showed that the change of Lilley’s status to full time in July 1994 involved more than merely changing the label of the position.

3. During academic 1993-1994 Lilley was paid only for days he actually worked and did not receive the fringe benefits provided to the District’s full-time employees.

4. Lilley was paid a salary and received the additional benefits provided to the district’s full-time professional staff commencing with academic 1994-95.

5. The superintendent stated that Lilley’s duties changed after July 1994 and provided examples such as his beginning to serve as Chair of the Committee on Special Education.

Thus, said the court, the record before the Commissioner contained sufficient evidence to provide a rational basis to support his rejection of Lilley’s appeal.

Citing Catlin v Sobol, 77 NY2d 552, the Appellate Division said that “[i]n such cases the Commissioner’s determination must be upheld unless it is arbitrary and capricious and without rational basis.”

Although Lilley attempted to support his claims by listing the duties contained in the district’s job description for the full-time school psychologist position and contended that he performed those duties during the 1993-1994 school year, he also conceded that his duties intensified after July 1994.

Considering the conclusory nature of Lilley’s answer to the district’s claims and Lilley’s “concession that his duties ‘intensified’, the absence of any independent evidence such as documents or affidavits of disinterested persons with knowledge of the facts to support [Lilley’s] self-serving allegations and the failure to include his claim concerning his 1993-1994 duties in his petition,” the Appellate Division held that there was nothing arbitrary, capricious or irrational in the Commissioner’s rejecting Lilley’s appeal.

Disciplinary action follows failure to report for medical exam

Disciplinary action follows failure to report for medical exam
Santiago v Koehler, 546 NYS2d 625

An appointment was schedule for an employee to be evaluated by the employer's Health Management Division. This apparently was one of a series of such appointments. Earlier appointments that had been scheduled for the employee but he failed to appear for the examination. When the Santiago failed to appear for this, the most recent scheduled appointment, he was served with disciplinary charges alleging misconduct based on his failure to report for the medical examination as scheduled.

Found guilty, Santiago was told that he had a choice as to the penalty to be imposed. He could elect either a five-day suspension without pay or, in the alternative, agree to pay a fine of 300 dollars. Santiago elected the five-day suspension without pay rather than the $300 fine. He then sued to vacate the disciplinary action, asking the court to rescind the penalty he had elected.

The Appellate Division, 1st Department, decided that the disciplinary determination was supported by substantial evidence. This evidence apparently included admissions by Santiago concerning the event. It then said that “the penalty of five days suspension, chosen by [Santiago] from the options adopted by the Commissioner, is not excessive in relation to the repeated infractions here involved.”

Enlarging the probationary period

Enlarging the probationary period
Caruso v Ward, 546 NYS2d 853

The New York City Police Department decided to change the initial probationary period for police officers from eighteen months to two years. The Union challenged the decision and asked the Courts to annul the change.

The Appellate Division sustained the Department’s changing the term of the probationary period for newly appointed police officers, citing a number of reasons for its ruling.

The Court said that the Union:

(1) had failed to show that it had a clear legal right to the relief it sought [reversion to the 18 month probationary period] and

(2) it did not present any evidence of bad faith, illegality or arbitrary action by the Department in extending the maximum period of probation for new appointees to the force.

The Appellate Division then said that “the decision to enlarge the probationary period was rationally related to the goal of more thorough evaluation of [a] new officers’ fitness for duty” and denied the union’s appeal.

Employee’s “informal” comment that he or she “may need FMLA leave” may not be sufficient to trigger FMLA protections

Employee’s “informal” comment that he or she “may need FMLA leave” may not be sufficient to trigger FMLA protections
Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/
Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.

Upon learning that his wife was pregnancy and due in early 2008, Chad Wilson told his supervisor that he might need to take leave to care for his newborn if his mother-in-law was unavailable. Wilson was subsequently terminated for dismissing his supervisor's concerns about Wilson’s failure to follow the chain of command regarding a pay issue.

Wilson sued alleging that his termination was in retaliation for exercising FMLA rights. He argued that he engaged in FMLA-protected activity by requesting leave to care for his child. The FMLA provides that an employee must "provide at least verbal notice sufficient to make the employer aware that the employee needs FMLA-qualifying leave, and the anticipated timing and duration of the leave" [29 CFR 825.302(c)].

The Fifth Circuit found that Wilson failed to provide adequate notice of the need for FMLA leave. Wilson, the Court observed, " never informed Noble that he intended to take leave, only that he "might" need to take leave and that there was a "possibility" that he would need to take leave." The Court held that these comments were insufficient to make his employer aware that he needed FMLA-qualifying leave.

The Court also found that Wilson failed to notify his employer of the "anticipated timing and duration" of any leave. Wilson conceded that he did not get into any specifics as to who, what, when, or where of the leave. Telling his supervisor that he "might" need to take leave "early in the year after the baby was here" failed to inform the employer of the anticipated timing and duration of the leave, the Court held.

The Court held that Wilson failed to establish that his removal was in retaliation for requesting FMLA leave.

Wilson v. Noble Drilling Service, Inc., 10-20129 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2010)

Mr. Bosland Comments: While employees need not invoke the FMLA by name when requesting leave, they must provide their employer with sufficient information to alert the employer that FMLA leave may be needed.

Telling an employer that you "might" or "possibly" may need FMLA leave, even for an FMLA-qualifying reason, is not sufficient. To be a valid request, courts also want more specificity in terms of the timing and duration of the leave. Employees do not invoke the protections of the FMLA by telling your employer that you may need leave at unknown time in the future.

To invoke the FMLA, employees need to provide more specifics, not less, when requesting leave.