An alleged ambiguity in the collective bargaining agreement concerning the applicability of a provision constitutes a matter of contract interpretation and is for the arbitrator to resolve

An alleged ambiguity in the collective bargaining agreement concerning the applicability of a provision constitutes a matter of contract interpretation and is for the arbitrator to resolve

Board of Educ. of Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v Yorktown Congress of Teachers, 2012 NY Slip Op 06023, Appellate Division, Second Department

Yorktown Central School District filed an Article 75 petition seeking a permanent stay arbitration of a claim by a teacher for approval of certain graduate credits for compensation pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Supreme Court granted the school districts petition and the Yorktown Congress of Teachers appealed.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling “on the law” and directed that the parties proceed to arbitration.

The court noted that the relevant collective bargaining agreement included [1] an annex to the salary schedule providing for payments for approved graduate credits and [2] a “four-step grievance* procedure culminating in binding arbitration.”

The Appellate Division explained that in determining whether a dispute between a public sector employer and employee organization on behalf of an employee is arbitrable,** a court must first determine whether there is a statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance. If it finds no such prohibition against arbitration, the court must examine the parties' collective bargaining agreement to determine "whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute."

Finding that arbitration of the instant dispute was not prohibited by public policy or statute, including those provisions of the Education Law permitting any party aggrieved by a determination of a board of education to appeal to the Commissioner of Education nor by the power of a school board to manage the educational affairs of the school district, the Appellate Division found that there was a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA – i.e., a claim for approval of graduate credits for compensation and the general subject matter of the CBA.

Noting that “some uncertainty exists as to whether the subject matter of the dispute is encompassed within the provision governing payments for approved graduate credits or the exclusion from arbitration of matters involving the Board's discretion,” the Appellate Division said that any alleged ambiguity in the CBA "regarding the coverage of any applicable provision is . . . a matter of contract interpretation for the arbitrator to resolve."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division granted the Youngstown Congress of Teacher’s cross petition to compel arbitration.

* In this instance the CBA defined a "grievance" as "any dispute or claim by either party . . . arising out of or in connection with this Agreement" other than matters that involved [a] the School Board's exercising its discretion, [b] a nonapproval of tenure decision; and [c] matters where a review was prescribed by law.

** Subject limited exceptions, as a general rule only the certified or recognized employee organization may demand arbitration of a grievance.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06023.htm

Reinstatement following layoff focuses on tenure rights

Reinstatement following layoff focuses on tenure rights

Chauvel v. Nyquist, 55 AD2 76, affd., 43 NY2 48)

Does “greater system-wide service” control situations involving layoff of teachers, or is it seniority in corresponding or similar positions that determines which person is to be offered an open teaching position first?

Where the performance of duties of the open position is unquestionably “similar” to those of the abolished positions, the teacher having the greater seniority in the performance area, not in the employing school district itself, is to receive the appointment.

Standards for such re-employment are more narrow than those dealing with layoff (Ward v. Nyquist, 43 NY2d 57) so as to prevent erosion of the tenure rights of the incumbents of abolished positions and means that the duties required to be performed in the vacant position must be similar to the duties performed by the person in his previous position before it was abolished. A test was stated in Elkins, 14 Ed Dept Repts 193, to the effect that if more than one-half of the functions to be performed by the incumbent of the new position are those which he performed in his old position, the positions are similar.

=========================

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click On http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.

=========================

Statute of limitations for challenging a personnel decision begins running when the individual is notified of the final and binding determination

Statute of limitations for challenging a personnel decision begins running when the individual is notified of the final and binding determination
McCarry v Purchase Coll., State Univ. of N.Y., 2012 NY Slip Op 06026, Appellate Division, Second Department

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging the decision of the President of the State University of New York College at Purchase not to reappoint an assistant professor to the Purchase faculty, Supreme Court annulled the President’s determination and remitted the matter to for a de novo review and a new determination. Supreme Court also directed the retroactive reinstatement of the faculty member with full compensation and benefits pending the de novo review.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s rulings “on the law."

Pointing out that the assistant professor’s challenge to the President’s decision was time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations, the court explained that the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR §217(1) began to run on the date that the challenged determination became final and binding.*

Citing Matter of Village of Westbury v Department of Transp. of State of N.Y., 75 NY2d 62, the Appellate Division said that "A determination generally becomes binding when … the agency has reached a definitive position that inflicts concrete injury to the aggrieved party that cannot be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action” and the individual has been advised of that determination.

In this instance it was undisputed that the assistant professor commenced his Article 78 action more than four months after receiving notice that he had not been reappointed to his teaching position.

Significantly, the court said that the limitations period did not run from the date upon which the assistant professor's fixed-duration employment contract automatically ended but rather commenced to run when he received notice of the “final determination” that he would not be reappointed to the college faculty.

Further, said the court, even had the faculty member Article 78 action “been timely commenced, the record demonstrates that the [College President] substantially complied with the internal rules of Purchase College, State University of New York and the determination was not arbitrary and capricious."

* N.B. A request to “reconsider” a final and binding administrative determination does not toll the running of the Statute of Limitations [Lavin v Lawrence, 54 AD3d 412].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06026.htm

Evidence of progress in employee’s treatment for alcoholism tempers disciplinary penalty

Evidence of progress in employee’s treatment for alcoholism tempers disciplinary penalty

NYC Department of Sanitation v Anonymous, OATH Index #1637/12

Although the New York City Department of Sanitation sought to terminate an employee after a positive alcohol test, OATH Administrative Law Judge Tynia D. Richard recommended a 30-day suspension for the sanitation worker.

Judge Richard noted that the employee had offered evidence of his progress through alcohol treatment as a recovering addict.

The Department’s request for termination was essentially based on the two earlier opportunities that it had provided the worker to recover from his alcohol dependence.*

In fashioning a penalty recommendation, the ALJ noted that employee had voluntarily entered the treatment program, took responsibility for his actions and showed insight into the extent of his problem, and that such a penalty might be combined with ongoing alcohol testing (though not provided under Civil Service Law §75) as the Department sees fit.

* Individuals who abuse alcohol may be considered disabled under the ADA if the person is an alcoholic or a recovering alcoholic. Courts have usually held that alcoholism is a covered disability. For example, in Williams v. Widnal, 119 F3d 305, [Cert. Denied 118 S. Ct. 871], the court said, without discussion, that alcoholism “is a covered disability.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/12_Cases/12-1637.pdf

Payment of vacation leave accruals upon separation from employment

Payment of vacation leave accruals upon separation from employment
Bolin v Nassau County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.,52 AD3d 704

Although the employee admitted that she "agreed to resign" and plead guilty to attempted grand larceny in the second degree, she subsequently sought payment of her “accrued vacation benefits” and the return of her “personal property” from Nassau County Board of Cooperative Educational Services [BOCES].

BOCES had rejected the request for the payment of accrued vacation benefits in the sum of $31,020.80. Of amount, $16,768.00 representing the cash value of her 40-day vacation leave balance and $14,252.80 represented the cash value of her 34-day "vested bank" vacation leave balance. In a separate cause of action, the individual sought the return of certain items of her personal property that she claimed BOCES had unlawfully refused to return after she retired.

BOCES asked Supreme Court to dismiss the combined petition/complaint, arguing that, as a matter of public policy, their former employee was not entitled to either payment because she pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

The Supreme Court agreed with BOCES and dismissed the petition/complaint, holding that, as a law, BOCES was within its right to reject the request for a lump sum payment representing her unused and "vested bank" vacation leave in view of her guilty plea.

The Appellate Division disagreed, ruling that the guilty plea did not warrant dismissal of BOCES's former employee’s petition/complaint in its entirety because, in this instance, certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement controlled.

The relevant provision in the collective bargaining agreement, said the court, "gives BOCES the discretion to deny payment for ‘vested bank’ vacation leave if the employee's separation from BOCES was ‘for cause.’”

Under the circumstances the Appellate Division ruled that Bolin’s separation from BOCES was "for cause" and thus she failed to demonstrate that BOCES was required to pay her for the cash value of her 34-day "vested bank" vacation balance as the collective bargaining agreement gave BOCES discretion to deny such payment in the event an employee’s separation was “for cause.”

As to the payment of payment of the cash value of the individual’s 40-day vacation leave balance, she argued that the collective bargaining agreement "confirm[s], accept[s] and acknowledge[s] a past practice, established for a substantial period of time," in which BOCES pays retiring employees for any unused vacation leave.

The Appellate Division said that while the collective bargaining agreement itself was ambiguous in that it does not specifically require BOCES to pay retiring employees the cash value of their accumulated vacation leave balances, the relevant amendment to the collective bargaining agreement relied upon specifically references such a past practice and does not contain a separation "for cause" limitation or exception.

The court concluded that Supreme Court had “improperly dismissed” her claims that (1) BOCES must pay her the cash value of her 40-day vacation leave and (2) that she is the owner of certain personal property that BOCES unlawfully refused to return to her.

NYPPL Comments: 4 NYCRR 30.1 setting out the relevant portion of the Attendance rules that apply to employees in the classified service of the State and public authorities, public benefit corporations and other agencies for which the Civil Service Law is administered by the State Department of Civil Service, provides, in pertinent part, ”No employee who is removed from State service as a result of disciplinary action, or who resigns after charges of incompetency or misconduct have been served, shall be entitled to compensation for vacation credits under the provisions of this Part.” Many local civil service commissions have adopted a similar provision.

The full text of the decision is set out on the Internet at: http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2008/07/payment-of-vacation-leave-accruals-upon.html