Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to a disciplinary determination made after a hearing in determining if an individual is disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits

 

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to a disciplinary determination made after a hearing in determining if an individual is disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits
Matter of Telemaque (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 02109, Appellate Division, Third Department

Veronica Telemaque appealed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Telemaque had been found guilty and dismissed from her position after a hearing on disciplinary charges filed against her pursuant to Education Law §3020-a for allegedly engaging in misconduct, conduct unbecoming and/or prejudicial, insubordination and violating the employer's rules.

The Appellate Division said that Telemaque's primary challenge concerns the disciplinary Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations and alleged evidentiary errors were made at the disciplinary hearing. The Board noted that it did not appear that Telemaqueappealed that disciplinary determination and "her challenges to the merits of that determination may not be raised in this unemployment insurance proceeding."

As Telemaque had "a full and fair opportunity to litigate the charges of misconduct at [her §3020-a disciplinary] hearing, the Appellate Division said that the Board had "properly gave collateral estoppel effect to the Hearing Officer's factual determinations" in that proceeding and sustained the Board's determination.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_02109.htm 

As the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education's does not define full-time status for the purpose determining compensation, a collective bargaining agreement may control such a determination

As the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education's does not define full-time status for the purpose determining compensation, a collective bargaining agreement may control such a determination

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,062

Susan Ford-Gambee Wilhelm filed a appeal with the Commissioner of Education challenging the action of the Board of Education of the Eden Central School District assigning her to teach five classes following a reduction in her position from a full-time position to a .83 full time equivalent [FTE] position. 

Wilhelm contended that she was a full-time teacher within the meaning of §00.2(i) of the Commissioner’s regulations "because she continued to teach five classes each day, which she contended is a 1.0 FTE." She claimed that Eden has improperly treated her position as a .83 FTE and compensated her on that basis, even though she contended that she was a full-time teacher.

The Commissioner said that the essence of Wilhelm's argument appeared to be that §100.2(i) defines a full-time teaching load as five classes and thus that she is entitled to compensation as a full-time teacher based on the classes she was assigned to teach by the school district.

§100.2(i), relating to teaching assignments, provides that, with respect to teaching staff in public schools, the number of daily periods of classroom instruction for a teacher should not exceed five. Further, said the Commissioner, pursuant to the regulation, "a school requiring of any teacher more than six teaching periods a day, or a daily teaching load of more than 150 pupils, should be able to justify the deviation from this policy."

The Commissioner said that a petitioner, here Wilhelm, has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief.

Wilhelm, however, did not contend that her number of daily periods of classroom instruction exceeds five, admitted that she only taught five classes for the 2016-2017 school year and did not claim that she was assigned a daily teaching load in excess of 150 students. 

Rather she argued that §100.2(i) defines a full-time teaching load as five classes and thus she was entitled to compensation as a full-time teacher. 

The Commissioner disagreed, explaining that §100.2(i) "merely establishes a policy that teachers should not be assigned more than five classes or a teaching load of 150 pupils and requires that a board of education be able to justify any such assignment, for the purpose of maintaining quality instruction for students." Further, said the Commissioner, the regulation does not define full-time status for purposes of compensation, noting that in Wilhelm's case, was governed by the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume56/d17062

A collective bargaining agreement may expand an employer's obligation to provide information to an employee organization not specifically provided for by law

A collective bargaining agreement may expand an employer's obligation to provide information to an employee organization not specifically provided for by law

City of New York v New York State Nurses Assn., 2017 NY Slip Op 04492, Court of Appeals

New York State Nurses Association (Union) filed an improper practice petition with the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York (the Board), alleging that it had a right to certain information pursuant to New York City's Collective Bargaining Law (NYCCBL) §12-306(c)(4), in connection with disciplinary proceedings brought against two nurses employed by the City's Human Resources Administration (HRA).

HRA refused to provide the information the Union sought in connection with its representing the two nurses in the disciplinary action, including the "relevant policies and the HRA Code of Conduct, information on time-keeping, patient treatment records for the relevant dates, witness statements, and a written statement detailing how the nurses violated the HRA Code of Conduct." HRA also refused to permit the Union to question "the witnesses who gave statements and the nurses' supervisors."

The Board, with two members dissenting, ruled that it was an improper practice for the City to refuse to comply with certain of the information requests, finding that §12-306(c)(4) extends to information "relevant to and reasonably necessary to the administration of the parties' agreements, such as processing grievances." The Board, however, found that the Union was not entitled to witness statements or a written explanation regarding the violation or the opportunity to question the identified witnesses or supervisors, concluding that §12-306(c)(4) is limited to information "normally maintained in the regular course of business."

The City filed an Article 78 petition challenging the Board's determination.

Supreme Court granted the City's petition and annulled the Board's determination, concluding that the Board improperly extended the Union's right to obtain information for grievances pursuant to contract administration to disciplinary proceedings, noting that "the agreement does not explicitly require the City to provide information in disciplinary proceedings."

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, holding that "the Board's decision, which was entitled to 'substantial deference,' had a rational basis" but granted the City leave to appeal on a certified question of whether its order was properly made.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, Judge Garcia dissenting, explaining:

1. NYCCBL provides that it is improper practice for a public employer "to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith on matters within the scope of collective bargaining with certified or designated representatives of its public employees" and requires both employers and unions "to furnish to the other party, upon request, data normally maintained in the regular course of business, reasonably available and necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding and negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining."

2. The Board held that NYCCBL §12-306(c)(4) extended to information "relevant to and reasonably necessary for the administration of the parties' agreements, such as processing grievances, and/or for collective negotiations on mandatory subjects of bargaining."

3. The Appellate Division noted, "... the City and HRA do not dispute the Board's precedent holding that the duty to furnish information already applied to 'contract administration' and 'grievances' (including potential grievances)."

4. Union had bargained for and obtained the right to obtain such information in the context of a disciplinary proceedings and not just "contract" grievances by defining "grievance" to include disciplinary action in the relevant collective bargaining agreement.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_04492.htm

Residence in a municipality may not be a requirement for appointment as a sanitation worker

Residence in a municipality may not be a requirement for appointment as a sanitation worker

Opinions of the State Comptroller

The State Comptroller has issued an opinion (Op St Comp 80-11) indicating that an employee of a municipal Department of Sanitation may not be required to reside in the municipality. The Comptroller noted a section of the Public Officers Law which excepted sanitation workers from automatic removal from their position if they cease to be a resident of the municipality. Left unanswered is the effect of a local law which mandates such residence.

Town may provide for legal defense of councilman

Town may provide for legal defense of councilman

Opinions of the Attorney General

The Attorney General indicated that if a town councilman is sued for libel for remarks he made at a Town Board meeting, he may request that the Board provide for his defense. If the Board refuses, and he wins, he may recover the reasonable costs of his defense by an action against the Board.

N.B.  See the Corning v. Laurel Hollow, 48 NY2d 348, in which the Court held that without a statute providing for such reimbursement such payment would constitute an unlawful gift of public monies.