Retired Public Employees Association sues State for unilaterally increasing the percentage of health insurance premiums to be paid by retirees of the State

Retired Public Employees Association sues State for unilaterally increasing the percentage of health insurance premiums to be paid by retirees of the State
Source: Retired Public Employees Association press release

On December 7, 2011, the Retired Public Employees Association [RPEA] announced that it is commencing legal action against Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and the State of New York challenging the State’s attempt to make its retirees pay a larger portion of their health insurance premiums. According to RPEA, State officials are “administratively extending” the provisions of certain collective bargaining agreements between employee organizations representing employees of the State as the employer to retired employees of the State.*

RPEA Executive Director Alan Dorn said that the State is trying to balance its budget on the backs of its retirees who, unlike active employees of the State in a collective bargaining unit, have no ability to negotiate for “give backs or other benefits.” Dorn observed that the State has increased the retiree’s cost of such coverage by two percent and that “a 2% contribution for individual coverage is really a 20% increase.” 


Mr. Dorn's letter to Civil Service Commission President Patricia Hite concerning the increase of the retiree's contribution for his or her health insurance  is posted on the Internet at:

http://rpea.org/documents/commentsobjectEmergRule-10-20-11-2.pdf

The text of RPEA's complaint is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75054148/Retirees
 

* Civil Service Law §167.1(a) currently sets the percentage of contributions for State retirees who retired on or after January 1, 1983 and provides that such retirees are to pay: 10% of the premium for individual coverage and, where so enrolled, 25% of the premium for dependent coverage.

Four months to appeal an adverse disciplinary determination is the limit

Four months to appeal an adverse disciplinary determination is the limit

Bevins v. Brugher, 83 A.D.2d 66

When the employees were found guilty of misconduct, the penalty of dismissal “effective immediately” was imposed.

The employees were notified by letter dated December 31. On May 2 of the following year the employees sought to overturn their terminations. The Court dismissed their petitions as untimely, as it was brought more than four months after the effective date of the dismissal.

The Appellate Division rejected the argument that an appointing authority could “purposefully withhold notification of the determination, allowing the limitation to run” as ignoring reality in cases of dismissal.

Human Rights may assume jurisdiction after another administrative body acts

Human Rights may assume jurisdiction after another administrative body acts

Jainchill v. NYS Human Rights Appeals Board, 83 A.D.2d 665

After having her appeal that the examiners had improperly rated her oral test because of her sex denied by the Civil Service Commission, Jainchill filed the same complaint with the State Division of Human Rights.

After initially rejecting the complaint because she had previously commenced an administrative action relating to the same grievance, the Division decided that it had jurisdiction after all.

The Appellate Division agreed, stating that the Division cannot consider matters pending before another administrative body but could take jurisdiction once the other administrative agency proceeding was completed.

N.B. The court also noted that if Jainchill had commenced a proceeding seeking judicial review of the Civil Service Commission’s determination, there would have been a permanent barrier to her filing the same complaint with the Division of Human Rights thereafter.

Passing the test is not enough

Passing the test is not enough

Kirchgessner v. Hurlbut, 81 A.D.2d 958

Although number 3 on the eligible list for Senior Caseworker, Kirchgessner was disqualified because she did not have the specified training and experience required for the position.

When her appeal to the County Personnel Officer was denied, she sued to have her name restored to the eligible list.

Kirchgessner claimed experience as a Social Welfare Examiner satisfied the “social work” requirement for Senior Caseworker (See 18 NYCRR 680.14 for the qualifications).

The Appellate Division ruled that while the descriptions of Senior Caseworker and Senior Social Welfare Examiner (See 18 NYCRR 680.14) by broad interpretation could be viewed as “generally similar,” the Personnel Director was not arbitrary in his determination that Kirchgessner’s work experience did not fulfill statutory criteria and dismissed the appeal.

The court also noted that Hurlbut had consulted with the State Civil Service Commission to confirm his interpretation.

Challenging a disciplinary termination

Challenging a disciplinary termination
Matter of Matter of Roberts v Board of Collective Bargaining of the Off. of Collective Collective Bargaining, 2011 NY Slip Op 08807, Appellate Division, First Department

District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, challenged the penalty of dismissal imposed on one of its unit member. The employee was terminated from his position following a hearing before the New York City’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. The administrative law judge had found the individual guilty of certain charges and had recommended that the employee be terminated from his position, which recommendation was adopted by the appointing authority.

Although the employee appealed the appointing officer decision to the New York City Civil Service Commission, the Commission dismissed the appeal.

Noting that "The express provisions of Civil Service Law §§75 and 76 limit the appealability of a final agency determination to an article 78 proceeding or an appeal to the Civil Service Commission," the Appellate Division said that the employee failed to file a timely Article 78 “challenging that determination.”

The Appellate Division also sustained a ruling by the City’s Office of Collective Bargaining's Board of Collective Bargaining in which it declined to order the rescission and expungement of employee’s termination.

Although the challenge related only to the alleged improper charge of misuse of confidential information, the Appellate Division said that the employee’s termination was based on a number of sustained charges that were not found to be the product of improper anti-union practices.

The court held that the reinstatement of an employee in the context of an improper practice petition before OCB’s Board of Collective Bargaining “is only warranted where anti-union animus” was the “substantially motivating cause of [of the employee’s dismissal] and not merely one of the reasons therefor.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08807.htm