Direct dealing

Direct dealing

Stillwater Teachers Assoc. v Stillwater CSD, 32 PERB 4914

In labor relations, the term “direct dealing” is used to describe a situation where the employer deals directly with an individual concerning the individual’s terms and conditions of employment instead of dealing with the employee’s collective bargaining representative.

The Stillwater Teachers Association charged the district with an unfair labor practice - direct dealing. The association alleged that the school superintendent had advised a unit employee that if he resigned, the district would reemploy him at a higher salary than permitted by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties.

Administrative Law Judge Susan A. Camenzo concluded that the charge of direct dealing was unsubstantiated. The decision notes that other unit members unhappy with their salary had been told of the possible effects of resignation such as loss of tenure, seniority and were given no promise of reemployment. 

Here, said Camenzo, the employee assessed the risks and “decided on his own to resign and reapply for his old position at a higher contractual salary.

Employment agreements

Employment agreements

Dillon, et al, v City of New York, 238 AD2d 302; Leave to appeal denied, 90 NY2d 811

Typically, an individual is given a letter of appointment upon initial employment setting out the effective date of appointment and other important facts such as title and salary.

In some instances, the parties may enter into a contract. The employment of a school superintendent by a school district is an example of this.

The Dillon case concerns another type agreement that the parties may enter -- one in which the employee agrees to perform service for a specified period of time.

John T. Dillon, Jr. and his co-plaintiffs were appointed as Assistant District Attorneys in Bronx County. Prior to being hired, and as a condition of employment, they each signed a statement acknowledging that: “Assistant District Attorneys are required to abide by a commitment to give four years of initial service to the Office of the District Attorney. Failure to honor that commitment may result in a loss of benefits and an unfavorable termination from the Office.”

This four-year commitment was subsequently changed to three years. Dillon, Michael Newman and Eileen Koretz each submitted their resignations before completing their three-year service obligations. These resignations were apparently disregarded by the District Attorney and notations indicating “Terminated - Did Not Fulfill Commitment” were placed in their respective personnel files. In other words, their separation was deemed a termination, not a resignation.

Among the claims made by Dillon and the others in this litigation was that they had been defamed because of the characterization of their respective departures as a termination rather than a resignation. A State Supreme Court justice denied the district attorney's motion for summary judgment. In considering the district attorney's appeal from this ruling, the Appellate Division, with respect to Dillon's “employment commitment,” said:

“To allow an employee who contractually commits to work a number of years, which is common in many prosecutors' offices, to “resign” prior to satisfaction of the commitment period, and then threaten to sue for defamation if the employer characterizes the employee's departure as termination, would render meaningless the contractual commitment.”

The Appellate Division rejected Dillion's contention that the District Attorney's own, unilateral, reduction of the commitment period from four years to three years, abrogated the contractual commitment. The court said this argument was meritless as the district attorney's action only reduced the extent, and not the obligation, of employees' time commitments.

Exhausting administrative remedies

Exhausting administrative remedies

Jardim v PERB, 265 AD2d 329

The Jardim case demonstrates the importance of exhausting one's administrative remedies before initialing litigation challenging an administrative determination.

A Public Employment Relations Board administrative law judge [ALJ] dismissed improper practices charges filed by Leroy Jardim. Jardim claimed that he had been subjected to disciplinary action as a result of his performing his union duties.

In effect, Jardim alleged that he had been disciplined for performing “protected activities” within the meaning of the Taylor Law -- an unfair labor practice. The ALJ decided that the disciplinary action had not been taken against him because of his union activities.

Jardim then filed a petition with a State Supreme Court appealing the ALJ's determination. This proved to be a fatal procedural error. His petition was dismissed because the court determined that Jardim had not exhausted his administrative remedies. It seems that Jardim elected to file a petition appealing the ALJ's decision in State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules instead of filing his “exceptions” to the ALJ's ruling with PERB.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the lower court's ruling. The court said that “administrative review” was available to Jardim. Thus, the dismissal of his petition by the Supreme Court was appropriate.

The court pointed out that PERB's rules provided for such an administrative review, citing Section 204.10 [4 NYCRR 204.10] of the rules. Section 204.10(a) permits a party to appeal a determination by an ALJ to the board, provided such an appeal -- referred to as “exceptions” to the ALJ's determination -- is filed within 15 working days after the individual has received the ALJ's decision.

Section 204.10 (b)(4) of the rules requires the party filing exceptions to specifically state them in the appeal. Any basis for an exception to a “ruling, finding, conclusion or recommendation” made by the ALJ “which is not specifically urged is waived”.

Not being familiar with the rules not a valid excuse for failure to follow procedures

Not being familiar with the rules not a valid excuse for failure to follow procedures

Broome Co. Sheriff's Law Enforcement Supervisors v Sheriff's Department, 32 PERB 3054

Binghamton Police Supervisors Association v City of Binghamton, 32 PERB 3055

Ignorance or a misunderstanding of PERB's rules is not an acceptable excuse as the Law Enforcement Supervisors and Binghamton Police Supervisors decisions illustrate.

The Broome County Sheriff's Law Enforcement Supervisors Association filed a representation petition with PERB's Director of Employment Practices and Representation. The Association wanted to have the Broome County Sheriffs PBA decertified and the Association designated as the collective bargaining representative for a unit consisting of supervisory officers.

PERB’s director of representation dismissed the Association's petition after finding that the “showing of interest” [SOI] simultaneously filed with its petition “did not include a description of the unit the Association alleged to be appropriate....” The section of the Association's SOI form to be used to describe the unit the Association sought to represent was blank. This, said the director, meant that the SOI was not “on a form prescribed by the director” and therefore did not meet the requirements set out in Section 201.4(b) of PERB's' rules [4 NYCRR 201.4(b)].

The Association filed an exception to the director's ruling, contending that it had not been promptly notified of the deficiency and thus was prevented from correcting it in a timely fashion. In addition, the Association's representative said that the representation forms he received from PERB “had not included any form for an SOI petition.”

PERB sustained the director's determination. It said that the rules clearly set out the requirement. “A party who is ignorant of a requirement under the Rules is no differently situated than a person who is mistaken in his or her understanding of the meaning or application of the Rules.”

As an alternative argument, the Association claimed that it used a “floppy disk” of PERB forms that PERB created and offered for sale to the public but that the disk did not contain an SOI petition. PERB rejected the claim, noting that the disk included the SOI petition and “the Association's representative apparently used that computer version of the form to file a corrected SOI petition with the director.”

Commenting that it applies its rules strictly, “especially the Rules pertaining to showing of interest requirements,” PERB sustained the director's dismissal of the Association's representation petition.

In a similar case, Binghamton Police Supervisors Association v City of Binghamton, 32 PERB 3055, PERB rejected the Association's representation petition because, it also, “did not include a description of the unit the Association alleged to be appropriate....”

Determining the “future income” of a disabled public officer or employee

Determining the “future income” of a disabled public officer or employee

Iazzetti v City of New York, 93 NY2d 808

The Court of Appeals' ruling in the Iazzetti case is of importance to public employees, and, in the case of death, their survivors, who are injured while performing their duties.

Mario Iazzetti, an employee of the New York City Department of Sanitation, was injured on the job and was awarded accidental disability retirement benefits - a pension equal to 3/4 of his last annual salary.

Iazzetti and his wife, however, sued the City claiming it was responsible for his disability. A jury awarded them $200,000 in past lost earnings and benefits, $25,000 in past pain and suffering, $750,000 in future lost earnings and benefits, $250,000 in future lost pension, and $25,000 in future pain and suffering. The jury apportioned 80 percent of the responsibility for the accident to the City and 20 percent to Iazzetti.

The City moved to have the award for past and future loss of earnings and for “future lost pension” modified. A State Supreme Court justice ruled that Section 4545(b) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR] allowed the City to offset the jury's award for past loss of earnings by the amount Iazzetti had received from his accident disability retirement pension but said the jury's award for future losses could not be similarly reduced. The basis for the ruling: CPLR 4545(b) does not allow defendants to offset future losses.

The City appealed, contending that Section 4545(c) of the CPLR, rather than 4545(b) applied in Iazzetti's case. The Appellate Division agreed with the city. This resulted in a significant difference to the Iazzetties since unlike subdivision (b), subdivision (c) allows the employer to offset both past and future economic losses in such situations. Iazzetti asked the Court of Appeals to review the Appellate Division's ruling.

After a highly technical analysis of the impact of an amendment to the CPLR on its exiting provisions, the Court of Appeals determined that CPLR Section 4545(b) had not been repealed by implication when the Legislature amended the CPLR by adding a new subdivision (c) to Section 4545 and reversed. It ruled that “the Appellate Division erred in applying CPLR 4545(c) to reduce [Iazzetti's] jury verdict for future lost earnings.”

The significance of this ruling: Court and jury awards for future economic losses are permitted where the public employer is held liable, in whole or in part, for the injury or death of its employee.