Agency shop fee statutes affecting public employees

Agency shop fee statutes affecting public employees

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assoc., No. 14–915

On March 29, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assoc., 578 U.S. ___(2016).

At issue in this case was whether public-sector “agency shop” arrangements violate the First Amendment by requiring public employees to subsidizing speech not related to collective bargaining by public-sector unions unless the member elects to “opt-out.”

The Court said "The Judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

The decision results in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling standing, thereby permitting the California Teachers Association to continue its “agency shop” arrangement. Accordingly, a member of the negotiating unit must “affirmatively object” to “subsidizing nonchargable speech” by a public union and thereby receive a refund for the relevant portion of the agency shop fee attributed to supporting such “nonchargable speech.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/friedrichs.pdf

Determining the disability benefits due a firefighter as the result of a work-related injury can be complex

Determining the disability benefits due a firefighter as the result of a work-related injury can be complex

McKay v Village of Endicott, 2016 NY Slip Op 02129, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Appellate Division, in considering the Village of Endicott’s appeal of  decisions made by Supreme Court that awarded firefighter Joseph W. McKay certain disability benefits, set out  basic procedural guidelines with respect to determining a firefighter's eligibility for benefits available pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a in the event he or she disabled as the result of a "line-of-duty" injury:

1. In the event a firefighter claims that he or she suffered a disability in the performance of his or her duties, the employer makes the initial determination as to the employee’s fitness to return to full-duty or restricted/light-duty work based on the opinion of a physician it appointed to medically examine the firefighter.

2. The County has the right to make this initial determination without holding a hearing or initiating any type of proceeding.

3. In the event the employer determines that the firefighter is fit to return to full-duty or restricted/light duty, the firefighter may challenge the employer’s determination.

4. Should the firefighter challenge the employer’s decision, he or she is entitled to a hearing during which he or she may be represented by counsel and an opportunity to contest the employer's medical examiner's conclusion by submitting his own evidence, including the opinion of his personal physician and other medical experts.

5. The hearing officer weighs any conflicting medical opinions to arrive at his or her determination whether or not the firefighter is capable of returning to full-duty or restricted/light-duty work.

With these guidelines in mind, the significant events in the MacKay case are as follows:

McKay, employed by the Village as a firefighter, sustained a work-related injury in 2008 and obtained workers' compensation benefits. He was also granted disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a(1) by the Village.

The Village subsequently discontinued McKay’s GML §207-a(1) benefits. 

McKay, however, was latter found eligible for such GML §207-a(1) benefits but, prior to that determination being promulgated, McKay commenced receiving performance of duty disability retirement benefits from the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System. As a result, McKay was no longer eligible for GML §207-a(1) disability benefits.

McKay then sought post-retirement supplemental benefits payments from the Village that were available pursuant to GML §207-a(2). The Village denied his application and McKay initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding. 

In 2012, Supreme Court granted McKay’s petition in part and directed the Village to pay McKay GML §207-a(2) benefits retroactive to the effective date of his performance of duty disability retirement in 2010, "pending a determination consistent with due process" as to whether GML §207-a(2) supplemental benefits should be terminated.

The Village appealed the Supreme Court's 2012 judgment. While that appeal was pending, McKay submitted a proposed judgment to Supreme Court that would award him a set amount in retroactive benefits. While the parties were arguing over the court’s issuing a new judgment and the correct amount of retroactive benefits to be awarded, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's 2012 Article 78 decision, (see 113 AD3d at 991-993). 

In February 2014 Supreme Court issued a judgment that awarded McKay $67,830.69 in retroactive benefits, interest and costs. The Village appealed the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling.

The Appellate Division, however, limited the Village’s appeal of the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling to the Village's claim that Supreme Court had erred in calculating the amount of retroactive benefits the court awarded to McKay in its 2014 judgment. 

The Appellate Division agreed with the Village's contention that the lower court had erred in calculating "retroactive benefit," holding that “the award of retroactive benefits cannot stand.” 

The court explained that although the Village was not required to pay McKay his full salary as of the date that he was granted performance of duty disability retirement benefits, he was entitled to the difference between the amounts received as his retirement allowance and the amount of his regular salary or wages that he would have otherwise received had he not retired from the Village "until such time as he shall have attained the mandatory service retirement age applicable to him or shall have attained the age or performed the period of service specified by applicable law for the termination of his service."

The Appellate Division also said that Supreme Court’s 2012 judgment, and its affirming thereof, “make clear that [McKay] was entitled to receive the benefits afforded by GML §207-a(2) until a due process hearing could be conducted to determine whether those benefits should be terminated.”

Although Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment correctly required the Village to pay McKay benefits retroactive to the date of his 2010 retirement, and Supreme Court acknowledged that those benefits must be "reduced by the amount of the [workers' compensation] benefits" that McKay received as a result of his 2008 injury, the Appellate Division noted that Supreme Court did not "factor in the receipt" of the workers' compensation benefits received by McKay in making its award “due to a  lack of proof to establish the offset amount” and directed the Village “to seek redress in whatever forum it deems appropriate."

Agreeing that the proof presented concering the amount of the offset was "meager," the Appellate Division said that the award was premature without considering this “offset” and rather than require the Village to undertake “piecemeal efforts” to establish the appropriate offset amount, it remitted the matter "to Supreme Court for the holding of a hearing, without delay, at which the parties may present proof relative to . . . [the Village’s] entitlement to an offset" in consideration of the workers’ compensation benefits paid to McKay."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_02129.htm

_____________________

The Disability Benefits E-book: - This e-book focuses on disability benefits available to officers and employees in public service pursuant to Civil Service Law §§71, 72 and 73, General Municipal Law §207-a and §207-c, the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Workers’ Compensation Law, and similar provisions of law. For more information click on: http://booklocker.com/3916.html

_____________________

Name clearing hearings

Name clearing hearings

Chang v Department of Educ. of the City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 02018, Appellate Division, First Department

The New York City Department of Education [Department] terminated Tzefang Frances Chang’s contract as a bilingual speech pathologist. Chang brought an Article 78 action challenging the Department’s action.

Supreme Court dismissed Chang’s petition after finding that the agreement between the Department and Chang gave the Department “the unconditional right to terminate the contract without cause and that such contract termination clauses are enforceable.”*In addition, the court said that the Department was not required to accept Chang's claims concerning the events that triggered the Department’s action. The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s ruling.

Another element in this action concerned Chang’s demand for a “name-clearing hearing.” The Appellate Division held that Chang was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing as she presented no evidence to refute the statements of the Department’s Director of Employee Relations that “the code” placed on Chang's personnel file was for internal use only, and therefore she failed to show a likelihood of public dissemination of the material she alleged was “stigmatizing.”

In Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, the Court of Appeals held that with respect to an employer providing a former employee with a “name clearing hearing,” the material in the individual’s personnel records objected to must be “stigmatizing in the constitutional sense,” and not merely charges of “individual or isolated instances of bad judgment or incompetent performance of duties.” Further, the individual seeking such a hearing carries the burden of proof and must show the “stigmatizing nature” of the information and its publication to the public.

Courts have held that the internal disclosure of allegedly stigmatizing reasons for the discharge or demotion of an employee to the individual and, or, to agency administrators “having a right to know” does not constitute a public disclosure of such information and thus a name-clearing hearing" is not required because of such intra-agency communications.

In any event, a name clearing hearing serves only one purpose - to provide the individual with an opportunity to clear his or her “good name and reputation” in situations where he or she alleges that information of a stigmatizing nature has been made public by his or her former employer. Prevailing at a name-clearing hearing does not entitle the individual to reinstatement to his or her former position.

* Presumably an employer’s “unconditional right” to terminate a contract employee would not extend to insulating the employer from liability if it terminated the individual for a constitutionally impermissible reason or purpose.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_02018.htm

___________________ 

The Discipline Book - A 458 page guide focusing on New York State laws, rules, regulations, disciplinary grievances procedures set out in collective bargaining agreements and selected court and administrative decisions concerning disciplinary actions involving state and municipal public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/5215.html 

___________________

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending March 26, 2016

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending March 26, 2016

Click on text highlighted in color to access the entire report 

Municipal Audits released:

Town of Hempstead Sanitary District No. 1 - Selected Financial Activities 

Niagara Falls Water Board – Financial Management 

City of Olean – Procedures Related to Obligations to Fund Operating Deficits 

School Audits released: 

Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake Central School District – Leave accruals and separation payments 

Ellenville Central School District – Financal Condition 

Lake Pleasant Central School District - Payroll 

Mount Pleasant-Blythedale Union Free School District – Short-Term Borrowing and Purchasing 

Pelham Union Free School District – Reserve Funds 

Mobil must include Climate Change Resolution in Shareholder Vote
Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, as Trustee of New York State Common Retirement Fund, and the Church of England co-filed a shareholder proposal at ExxonMobil in December, asking the company to assess how the worldwide effort to rein in global warming would impact its business. In response, ExxonMobil sought clearance from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to block DiNapoli’s proposal from a shareholders’ vote at its annual meeting. Wednesday, the SEC rejected that request.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/mar16/032316c.htm?utm_source=weekly+news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=corporate+governance&utm_content=20160327&utm_campaign=pension+fund 

Agreements reached on Corporate Political Spending
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that five Fortune 500 companies – Coca-Cola Enterprises, Raytheon, Waste Management, Union Pacific and Centerpoint Energy – have agreed to the New York State Common Retirement Fund’s request that they publicly report all direct and indirect corporate political spending.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/mar16/032316c.htm?utm_source=weekly+news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=corporate+governance&utm_content=20160327&utm_campaign=pension+fund

A party to a stipulation of settlement cannot withdraw from the stipulation on the basis that it had "improvidently" agreed to it

A party to a stipulation of settlement cannot withdraw from the stipulation on the basis that it had "improvidently"agreed to it

State of New York v Public Employment. Relations Board, 2016 NY Slip Op 02131, Appellate Division, Third Department

Supreme Court dismissed New York State’s application seeking a review of the New York State Public Employment Relations Board’s [PERB] denial of the State's request to withdraw from a stipulation of settlement and vacate a PERB decision issued in consideration of such stipulation.

The Governor's Office of Employee Relations (GOER) and the Public Employees Federation [PEF] notified PERB's Director of Public Employment Practices and Representation [Director] that the parties had reached a stipulation of settlement whereby PEF had agreed to withdraw certain representation petitions pending before PERB and that GOER had agreed to the placement of 250 of the 2,000 relevant unrepresented positions in the Professional, Scientific and Technical Services [PST] negotiating unit.

The parties expressly agreed that the employees in the 250 positions, which were listed in an attached appendix, were "not assigned to any duties that would bring them within the definition of managerial and/or confidential under [Civil Service Law] §201.7(a)" and that the individuals in those positions "share[d] a general community of interest with other [s]tate employees in the [PST] [u]nit." Relying on the stipulation, the Director issued an interim decision consistent with the stipulation. 

GOER subsequently moved to vacate the stipulation and the interim decision on the basis that GOER “it had failed to provide sufficient guidance to the impacted agencies to allow them to make a determination as to whether the employees in the subject positions served in a managerial or confidential capacity." This failure, said the State, resulted in certain employees being identified in the stipulation as PST unit employees although they, in fact, continued to perform duties that are appropriately deemed managerial or confidential within the meaning of the Taylor Law.

The Director denied the motion and, ultimately, PERB granted PEF's petition to the extent of placing the 250 positions in the P S and  T unit. The State then commenced an CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking review of PERB's determination. Supreme Court confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition; the Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Noting that the court had a “limited scope of review in matters involving PERB's interpretation of the Civil Service Law,” the Appellate Division explained that a determination made by PERB would not be vacated “unless it was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.”

Although the State argued that PERB's refusal to vacate the stipulation and the interim decision was arbitrary and capricious because:

[1] The stipulation did not provide a sufficient factual basis to determine whether placement of the 250 positions into the PST unit was appropriate; and

[2] In issuing the interim decision, the Director relied on representations made in the stipulation without conducting an independent investigation into the appropriateness of the placement.

The Appellate Division was not persuaded by these argument, holding that while the Director is charged with investigating all questions relating to representation status, including whether the public employees to be included in the unit share a community of interest and "whether there is agreement among the parties as to the appropriateness of the alleged unit," a fair reading of the applicable regulatory provisions demonstrates that the Director is not required to conduct an independent inquiry into representation issues when the parties agree on unit placement.*

In the alternative, the State contended that PERB acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow it to withdraw from the stipulation on the basis that it had "improvidently" entered into it.

This argument also proved unpersuasive. In the words of the Appellate Division, “[s]tipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and will not be disturbed unless they are sullied by fraud, collusion, mistake or accident." Citing Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, the court said that a stipulation may not be invalidated on the basis of unilateral mistake where the mistake arose out of a party's failure to ascertain facts that were available at the time that it entered into the stipulation.”

The same general principle applies with respect to collective bargaining agreements. In the Matter of the Arbitration between City of Plattsburgh and Plattsburgh Police Officers Union AFSCME Local 82, 250 AD2d 327, leave to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 803, the Appellate Division, in effect, held there is no judicial or quasi-judicial cure for “negotiator's remorse” should a party agree to a lawful contract provision in the course of  collective bargaining and subsequently claim it agreed to the provision “by mistake.”

The State’s “sole basis” for seeking rescission of the stipulation, said the court, was that it failed to provide the training necessary to determine whether an employee was performing in a managerial or confidential capacity and that it, therefore, "ha[d] reason to believe that certain of the employees continue[d] to perform duties that are appropriately deemed managerial or confidential."**

Noting that the parties had entered into the stipulation of settlement some 2½ years after PEF filed the triggering representation petition with PERB, the Appellate Division opined that the State “had sufficient time to investigate and discover the nature of the duties assigned to the employees in the 250 at-issue positions, and its failure to do so in a timely manner does not warrant invalidation of the stipulation of settlement.”

Another point to remember. From time to time a "position" may be referred to as a "managerial" or "confidential" position. However it is not the position  in which an incumbent serves that determines the individual's "managerial" or "confidential" status.The relevant law clearly provides that “individuals” rather than “positions” are to be designated managerial or confidential, which designation is to be based on the nature of the duties being performed by the individual rather than on the basis of the “title” of the position in which the individual serves.

§201.7[a], in pertinent part, states that “Employees may be designated as managerial only if they are persons (i) who formulate policy or (ii) who may reasonably be required on behalf of the public employer to assist directly in the preparation for and conduct of collective negotiations or to have a major role in the administration of agreements or in personnel administration provided that such role is not of a routine or clerical nature and requires the exercise of independent judgment. Employees may be designated as confidential only if they are persons who assist and act in a confidential capacity to managerial employees described in clause (ii).”

The only positions designated managerial or confidential in Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, the Taylor Law, in terms of  “title” are set out in Civil Service Law §201.7[b].

§201.7[b] provides that “For the purposes of this article, assistant attorneys general, assistant district attorneys, and law school graduates employed in titles which promote to assistant district attorney upon admission to the bar of the state of New York shall be designated managerial employees, and confidential investigators employed in the department of law shall be designated confidential employees.”

* The stipulation of settlement reflected that the parties agreed that the employees to be included in the unit, whose positions were listed in an appendix, did not perform duties that fell under the classification of managerial or confidential and that they shared a community of interest with the employees in the PST unit.

** The court also commented that the State “did not identify those employees that they assert were improperly placed into the P S and T unit or provide any evidence to substantiate its conclusory claims.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_02131.htm