The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is bound by the disciplinary arbitrator's factual findings regarding the employee’s misconduct

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board held bound by the disciplinary arbitrator's factual findings regarding the employee’s misconduct 

2014 NY Slip Op 07414, Appellate Division, Third Department

A NYC Transit Authority [Authority] train operator [Operator] was served with disciplinary charges. Following a full evidentiary arbitration hearing conducted under the collective bargaining agreement, Operator was terminated.

Operator applied for unemployment insurance benefits and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, noting that it was bound by the factual findings of the arbitrator, conducted an "independent evaluation” as to whether Operator’s behavior constituted disqualifying misconduct for the purposes of unemployment insurance.

The Board, however, found that Operator’s behavior leading to the Authority’s filing disciplinary charges did not constitute “disqualifying misconduct” within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law and approved his claim for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Appellate Division reversed the Board’s determination.

The court explained that "While the Board was free to make 'independent additional factual findings' and draw its own independent conclusion as to whether [Operator’s] behavior rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct for purposes of entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits, it was also bound by the [arbitrator's] 'factual findings regarding [Operator’s] conduct and [her] conclusion' that claimant had" committed serious violations of safety rules.

In this instance the arbitrator found that Operator had committed “grave violations of the employer's policies that had endangered the safety of his passengers, violations that were rendered even more egregious by the fact that he had previously been disciplined for similar conduct.”

In contrast, said the court, the Board “inexplicably found that [Operator] had ‘substantially complied with’ the [Authority’s] policies and made no effort to consider [Operator’s] behavior within the context of his prior disciplinary history."

Accordingly the Appellate Division ruled that the Board improperly contradicted factual findings of the arbitrator and remitted the matter to the Board for it to "reconsider upon appropriate findings."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07414.htm
.

If a settlement or award includes a payment only the part constituting reimbursement for lost wages is included in determining the employee’s retirement allowance

If a settlement or award includes a payment only the part constituting reimbursement for lost wages is included in determining the employee’s retirement allowance
2014 NY Slip Op 07412, Appellate Division, Third Department

In 2006 a grievance brought by the union on behalf of a teacher [Teacher] who was not selected for a coaching position was settled with the school district. The settlement included a payment in the amount of $9,500 for “lost wages” as the result of Teacher not being given a coaching position.

This 2006 settlement award was included in the calculation of Teacher's final average salary for retirement purposes by the New York State Teachers' Retirement System [TRS].

Teacher was not appointed to a coaching position for either of the next two school years.  The union again filed a grievance on behalf of Teacher and again the matter was settled. A 2011 settlement “memorandum of understanding [MOU]” provided for an awarded of $11,220.* This amount constituted the stipends that Teacher would have been paid had he been appointed to a coaching position for both school years.

Teacher then asked TRS to recalculate his three-year final average salary to include the 2011 settlement payment provided by the MOU and to adjust his retirement allowance accordingly. TRS determined that because the payment provided pursuant to the 2011 MOU was not part of Teacher‘s regular compensation it could not be included in the final computation of his retirement benefit.

Teacher sued TRS seeking a court order annulling its decision, arguing that TRS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious in light of its previous inclusion of the 2006 settlement payment in its computation of his final average salary.

Supreme Court dismissed Teacher’s petition and he appealed that ruling to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division noted that a TRS member's final average salary is based on his or her highest average annual regular salary that was earned over any three consecutive years of service prior to retirement but shall exclude, among other things, "payments which are not part of the salary base."

TRS had explained that it had included the payment made to Teacher pursuant to the 2006 stipulation as the MOU reflected an acknowledgment by the school district that it had violated an existing collective bargaining agreement when it denied Teacher's coaching application on the ground that he was unqualified and gave the positions to teachers with less seniority. In addition, the 2006 settlement confirm that Teacher was indeed eligible to assume the coaching positions.

However, TRS pointed out that the 2011 MOU settling Teacher's subsequent grievances “did not concede, in any manner, that the denial of Teacher ‘s coaching applications for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years had resulted in any contractual violations….” In fact, said TRS, the 2011 MOU reiterated the school district's assertion that Teacher "was unqualified for the coaching position at issue."

The Appellate Division said that the fact that the school district opted to pay Teacher in exchange for a complete settlement of his claims against it does not create a basis to find that Teacher was eligible for the coaching appointments. Accordingly, the court found that the MOU settlement payment did not constituted compensation that Teacher would have earned and thus TRS was correct in excluding the 2011 settlement payment in its calculation of Teacher’s final average salary.

Finding that TRS’s determination, which was rendered without a hearing, was rational and not arbitrary and capricious, the Appellate Division declined to disturbed it.

* The Appellate Division observed that “Although the MOU states that the $11,220 settlement amount constitutes the stipends of $5,605 that Teacher would have been paid if appointed to a coaching position during each of the two school years for which he applied, the annual stipend amounts actually total $11,210.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07412.htm

.

Removal of a public officer from his or her office

Removal of a public officer from his or her office

Kalodukas v Berentsen, 2014 NY Slip Op 07406, Appellate Division, Third Department

Glenda Kalodukas and other citizen residents of the Village of Bloomingburg in Sullivan County [Kalodukas], filed a petition in the Appellate Division pursuant to Public Officers Law §36* seeking to have the Appellate Division remove Mark Berentsen from his position of Mayor of the Village, alleging, among other things, that he violated General Municipal Law Article 18.**

Berentsen asked the court to dismiss the petition arguing, among other things, that the proceeding was moot in view of the fact that he was unsuccessful in his bid for reelection and no longer held the office of Mayor. The Appellate Division agreed and dismissed Kalodukas’ petition.

The court explained §36 of the Public Officers Law provides, as relevant in this action, that a village officer may be removed from office for "misconduct, maladministration, malfeasance or malversation in office." As Berentsen had lost his bid for reelection and no longer helds the public office from which Kalodukas sought to have him removed, the Appellate Division said that “the proceeding is undoubtedly moot.” 

In addition, the court addressed Kalodukas’ argument that the petition was not moot because Berentsen’s removal would prevent him from holding public office in the future. The Appellate Division, in a footnote, said that findings against an official in a removal proceeding pursuant to §36 of the Public Officers Law would not a bar his or her subsequent election to public office.***

* Such an application for removal may be made to the appellate division by any citizen resident of such town, village, improvement district or fire district, or by the district attorney of the county, in which such town, village or district is located. The officer is to given at least eight days notice and a copy of the charge[s] upon which the application will be made must be served with such notice.

** Article 18 is captioned “Conflicts of Interest of Municipal Officers and Employees”

*** In contrast, the court noted that Article VI, § 22 [h] of the State Constitution “A judge or justice removed by the [C]ourt of [A]ppeals shall be ineligible to hold other judicial office."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07406.htm

 __________________

The Discipline Book, - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

 __________________

Reporting compensation and reimbursement for expenses paid to election workers

Reporting compensation and reimbursement for expenses paid to election workers

Source: Internal Revenue Service bulletin

Election workers are individuals hired by government entities to perform services at polling places in connection with national, state and local elections.

An election worker may be referred to by other terms and titles, for example, poll worker, moderator, machine tender, checker, ballot clerk, voting official, polling place manager, absentee ballot counter or deputy head moderator. These workers may be employed by the government entity exclusively for election work, or may work in other capacities as well.

Election worker compensation is includible in income and may be treated as wages for social security and Medicare (FICA) tax purposes.

Election workers may be compensated by a set fee per day or a stipend for the election period. The election period may include attending training or meetings prior to and after the election. 

Election workers may also be reimbursed for their mileage or other expenses. To be excludable from wages, expense reimbursements must be made under an accountable plan.

For additional information, go to http://www.irs.gov/Government-Entities/Federal,-State-&-Local-Governments/Election-Workers-Reporting-and-Withholding

A written administrative employee evaluation that is not disciplinary in nature may be placed in an employees personnel file by the employer

A written administrative employee evaluation that is not disciplinary in nature may be placed in an employees personnel file by the employer
2014 NY Slip Op 07360, Appellate Division, Second Department

A tenured teacher [Teacher] filed a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking a court order directing the school district to remove a certain letter from Teacher's personnel file. Supreme Court dismissed Teacher’s petition and on appeal the Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s action.

The Appellate Division explained that the letter Teacher sought to have removed from his personnel file "[fell] within [the] permissible range of administrative evaluation," and the school district did not act unlawfully in making it part of Teacher's personnel file without first complying with the disciplinary procedural requirements set out in Education Law §3020-a. Although in New York a tenured teacher may not be "disciplined" without he or she being afforded the protections set out in Education Law §3020-a, a critical "administrative evaluation" may properly be included in a teacher's personnel file without the appointing authority first having to comply with the administrative due process requirements set out in §3020-a.

As to what falls within the ambit of “the permissible range of administrative evaluation," in Holt v Board of Education, 52 NY2d 625, the Court of Appeals ruled that performance evaluations and letters of criticism placed in the employee’s personnel file were not “disciplinary penalties” and thus could be placed there without having to first hold a disciplinary proceeding.

The basic rule set out in Holt is that a statutory disciplinary provision such as §75 of the Civil Service Law does not require that an employee be given a hearing or permitted to grieve every comment or statement by his or her employer that he or she may consider a criticism.

In contrast, in D'Angelo v Scoppetta, 19 NY3d 663, the Court of Appeals found that a letter placed in an employee's file indicating “serious misconduct” that could negatively impact his or her eligibility for a future promotion goes beyond “constructive criticism.” In other words, a writing claimed to constitute “constructive criticism” may not be used to frustrate an employee’s right to due process as set out in §75 of the Civil Service Law, §3020-a of the Education Law or a contract disciplinary procedure.

What distinguishes lawful “constructive criticism” of an individual’s performance by a supervisor and supervisory actions addressing an individual’s performance that are disciplinary in nature? Comments critical of employee performance do not, without more, constitute disciplinary action. On the other hand, counseling letters may not be used as a subterfuge for avoiding initiating formal disciplinary action against a tenured individual.The decisions of the Commissioner of Education in Fusco v Jefferson County School District, CEd, 14,396, and Irving v Troy City School District, CEd 14,373, are instructive in this regard.

In both the Fusco and Irving cases the Commissioner of Education found that the alleged “critical comment” filed in the respective personnel file of these employees exceeded the parameters circumscribing “lawful instruction” seeking to correct unacceptable performance.

In Fusco’s case, the Commissioner said that the “contents of the memorandum” did not fall within the parameters of a “permissible evaluation” despite the school board’s claim that the memorandum was “intended to encourage positive change” in Fusco’s performance. The Commissioner noted that the memorandum "contains no constructive criticism or a single suggestion for improvement." Rather, said the Commissioner, the memorandum focused on “castigating [Fusco] for prior alleged misconduct."

In Irving’s case, a school principal was given a letter critical of her performance and the next day reassigned to another school where she was to serve as an assistant principal. The Commissioner ruled that these two actions, when considered as a single event, constituted disciplinary action within the meaning of §3020-a of the Education Law."

 .

The Teacher decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07360.htm

_________________

The Discipline Book, - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. 
For more information click on http://booklocker.com/book/5215.html 

________________