Authority of the arbitrator

Authority of the arbitrator

City of New York v District Council 37, 2018 NY Slip Op 03220, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court granted the City of New York's petition to vacate an arbitration award, denied the grievance, and dismissed this proceeding the City brought pursuant to CPLR Article 75. The Appellate division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The court explained that an arbitrator exceeds his or her powers when the "award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power."

However, the fact that there is a provision in a contract that the arbitrator may not alter or modify does not limit the arbitrator's power to resolve the dispute by interpreting the contract based on his or her findings as to the intent of the parties.

In contrast, an arbitration award should be vacated where it is not derived from the contract but from the deliberate and intentional consideration of matters outside the contract.

Here, said the Appellate Division, the record shows that the arbitration award added to or modified the collective bargaining agreement as the arbitrator's decision rewrote the contract for the parties by expanding the number of workers entitled to the assignment differential, when the contract expressly limited the differential to workers at a specific facility.

This exceed the arbitrator's powers as such an action was expressly prohibited in the agreement

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03220.htm

Concerning the fellow-servant rule, the doctrine of vicarious liability and the doctrine of respondeat superior in New York State

Concerning the fellow-servant rule, the doctrine of vicarious liability and the doctrine of respondeat superior in New York State

Buckley v City Of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 300

[Decided with Lawrence v City of New York]

These cases essentially involved the question of whether the fellow-servant rule continues to apply in New York. 

In each of these cases an employee of the City of New York, who was injured through the negligence of a coworker brought an action against the City. 

In Buckley v City of New York, a police officer was accidentally shot in the leg when a gun being loaded by a fellow officer discharged in the station house locker room. 

In Lawrence v City of New York, a fire fighter was seriously injured when a fellow fire fighter threw a smouldering couch from the second story window of a fire-damaged building and struck the plaintiff while he was standing in the yard.

In each case the plaintiff secured a jury verdict of liability against the city on a theory of vicarious liability and the city's motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the fellow-servant rule was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgments in both instances and leave has been granted to appeal to this court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling.

The doctrine of  rule of respondeat superior holds that the employer will be liable to third parties for torts of an employee committed within the scope of his or her employment.

In contrast, the fellow-servant rule is triggered in the event an employee is injured by a fellow employee in the workplace. The injured worker will have no recourse against the employer in respondeat superiorand the rule provides that "where a servant is injured through the negligence or fault of a fellow servant, engaged in a common business and employment ... if the master is himself free from fault, the master is not responsible for the injury."

The Court of Appeals observed that "The over-all effect of the fellow-servant rule was drastically curtailed by the advent of workers' compensation legislation," concluding that "Today we are squarely presented with the question left open in Poniatowski — whether the fellow-servant rule is to survive in New York." Continuing, the court opined that "The rule had its birth in the 19th century, was severely crippled with the advent of workers' compensation, and was dealt an almost fatal blow in this State in Poniatowski v City of New York, 14 N.Y.2d 76."

With these decisions the court said it rejected "this rule entirely [and] inter its remains," explaining "The fellow-servant rule serves no continuing valid purpose in New York, but instead merely works an unjustifiable hardship upon individuals injured in the workplace, and we must thus conclude that the fellow-servant rule is no longer to be followed in New York."

The Buckley decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/198235656ny2d3001326

Exploring some aspects of "civil service status" in the Classified Service of the Civil Service in New York State

Exploring some aspects of "civil service status" in the Classified Service of the Civil Service in New York State

Cannavo v Olatoye, 2018 NY Slip Op 03740, Appellate Division, First Department

The Cannavo decision by the Appellate Division is set out below, with comments concerning some of the more "troublesome" elements of the ruling set out in bold in blue.

Supreme Court denied Cannavo's application for reinstatement to his former position with the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78, which ruling was unanimously affirmed, by the Appellate Division without costs. The Appellate Division's ruling states:

"The article 78 court correctly determined, upon consideration of all the facts, that respondents' denial of petitioner's application for reinstatement to his former position with NYCHA was not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Roberts v Gavin, 96 AD3d 669, 671 [1st Dept 2012])."

The decision reports that Cannao sought reinstatement with NYCHA following his retirement from NYCHA. As reinstatement of a former employee to his or her former position is a matter subject to the exercise of the discretion of the appointing authority, and absent such denial of the request for a discriminatory reason or unlawful purpose, the appointing authority's denial of the retiree's request for reinstatement is otherwise lawful.

Indeed, a retiree may be reemployed following his or her retirement subject to the limitations set out in §150 of the Civil Service Law. Further, §13-119 and 13-178 of the New York City Administrative Code addressed a retired member's eligibility to rejoin the relevant retirement system without any limitation based on "jurisdictional classification" of the position to which reemployment is sought.

The decision then continues:

"Despite petitioner's previous position as a "civil service" employee with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), when he was hired by NYCHA in 1996, it was in a non-competitive position that was not eligible for civil service status, as NYCHA's records reflect." 

The Civil Service of the State of New York, in contrast to the "military service" of the State of New York, consists of positions Exempt Class [CSL §41]; the Non-competitive Class [CSL §42]; the Labor Class [CSL §43] and the Competitive Class [CSL §44], which positions are in the "Classified Service" and positions the Unclassified Service, which positions are set out in CSL §35. 

No explanation or justification is provided with respect to the representation that Canno "was not eligible for civil service status" with NYCHA.

As to the status of HPD and NYCHA, the list of "New York City Agencies" listed on the Official Website of the City of New York includes, among other agencies:

●  Housing Authority, New York City (NYCHA)  and

●  Housing Preservation and Development, Department of (HPD)

As Yul Brynner exclaims in The King and I, "is a puzzlement!" as to why Canno "was not eligible for civil service status" with NYCHA because of the jurisdictional class of the position.

Upon a review of records kept by HPD, NYCHA, and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, respondents determined that petitioner's civil service status had not been formally transferred from HPD to NYCHA, and, since only those who have civil service status are eligible for reinstatement following retirement, rationally concluded that petitioner was not eligible for reinstatement.

This conclusion is troublesome as it appears that Canno resigned from his position in the "Civil Service" with HPD in favor of a de novo appointment to a position in "Civil Service" in the Non-competitive Class with NYHCA. The decision is silent with respect to the basis for the determination that petitioner lacked "civil service status" with NYCHA.

Further, there is no bar to the reinstatement of a retiree to his or her former position should the appointing authority approve such a reinstatement regardless of the jurisdictional classification of the position involved. 

The reinstatement, reappointment, reemployment or new appointment of a person otherwise qualified receiving a New York State public retirement system benefit is permitted at the discretion of the appointing authority, subject to the provisions and limitations set out in CSL §150 with respect to the suspension  of the individual's  pension  and  annuity and limits on compensation during such public employment.

The opinion continues:

While petitioner claims that certain NYCHA documents — including a notification of appointment and performance reviews he received in 1996 — reflect that he maintained his competitive civil service status, the record shows that he subsequently had many conversations with Human Resources and took actions to obtain a formal transfer. Moreover, attached to the petition is a 1996 memo from Human Resources informing petitioner that he did not, in fact, possess this status. As the court found, this is not a rare or extraordinary case in which the doctrine of estoppel or laches should be applied against a government agency (see Matter of New York State Med. Transporters Assn. v Perales, 77 NY2d 126, 130 [1990]).

With respect to the noting that Canno "took actions to obtain a formal transfer" as here relevant [see NYCRR 1.2(b)(1)], assuming, but not conceding, that such was, in fact, the case, a transfer from a position under the jurisdiction of one appointing authority to a position under the jurisdiction of a different appointing authority requires the approval of both appointing authorities.

In contrast, as indicated by 4 NYCRR 1.2(b)(2) , the placement of an individual under the jurisdiction of the appointing authority to another position under the jurisdiction of the same appointing authority having the same title is a "reassignment" not a "transfer."

The bottom line: A individual who retired from a position in the Classified Service is not barred from being reinstated to his or her former position if available and otherwise permitted by the controlling provisions of the Civil Service Law regardless of his or her pre-retirement "appointment status" in such position, i.e., permanent, contingent permanent, temporary, provisional, military substitute, or term and regardless of the jurisdictional classification  or budgetary status of the position in question if otherwise available for appointment thereto. 

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 24, 2018

CLERK

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03740.htm

Employer not liable for damages from an injury resulting from their superiors' exercising poor judgment

Employer not liable for damages from an injury resulting from their superiors' exercising poor judgment

Buckley v City of New York, 176 A.D.2d 207

[Decided with Coulter v City of New York]

Two New York City police officers sued the City to recover money damages for injuries they suffered while confronting a criminal suspect.

Their theory for recovery was that the City was negligent because "standard operating procedures" were not followed in an earlier attempt to arrest a suspect. Buckley and Coulter contended this failure to follow "standard operating procedures" resulted in their suffering injuries when they attempted to arrest the suspect some time later.

The Appellate Division dismissed their appeal, noting that "police officers may not recover monetary damages for the exercise of poor judgment on the part of their superiors in the exercise of their duties."

Although Buckley and Coulter, in the alternative, contended that they were entitled to recover under the provisions of §205-e of the General Municipal Law, the court ruled that §205-e applied only in cases involving the "negligent failure to comply with requirements regarding the maintenance and safety of [a] premises." As there was no allegation that their injuries were the result of such a failure, the Appellate Division held that §205-e was inapplicable insofar as recovery for their injuries was concerned.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1991383176ad2d2072243

Requiring a firefighter injured in the line of duty to accept a "light duty" assignment and where appropriate to undergo surgery

Requiring a firefighter injured in the line of duty to accept a "light duty" assignment and where appropriate to undergo surgery

Sestito v City of White Plains, 2018 NY Slip Op 03528, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Commissioner of Public Safety of the City of White Plains adopted the findings and recommendations of a hearing officer, made after a hearing, and terminated the Petitioner's benefits under General Municipal Law §207-a. The Appellate Division confirmed the Commissioner's determination and dismissed the Article 78 action "on the merits, with costs."

Petitioner in the action, a firefighter, alleged that he had been injured while performing his duties and applied for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a. The Commissioner's medical examiner found that Petitioner was capable of returning to light duty and that there would be a "medium to moderate" chance that he would be able to resume full duty if he underwent spinal fusion surgery.

The City's Fire Chief sent Petitioner a letter ordering him to return to work to assume a light duty position, or risk losing his benefits. A second letter sent by the Fire Chief awarded the Petitioner General Municipal Law §207-a benefits for a designated period and directed Petitioner to schedule the "fusion surgery."

Petitioner did not return to work as directed and did not undergo surgery, choosing instead to proceed with a challenge of the return to work order.

A hearing was conducted and the hearing officer concluded that the Fire Chief's orders were "reasonable and rational," and that Petitioner's failure to comply with those orders was without justification. The Commissioner adopted the recommendations of the hearing officer.

In his appeal Petitioner argues that the Commissioner's determination is not supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division disagreed, explaining that "Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla of evidence and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides."

Finding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's determination that Petitioner was fit to return to light duty and that surgery was a reasonable and appropriate treatment the court ruled that as Petitioner failed to return to work for his light duty assignment, and did not undergo surgery, his GML §207-a benefits were properly terminated.

In Schenectady Police Benevolent Association v New York State Public Employment Relations Board, 85 N.Y.2d 480, the Court of Appeals ruled that General Municipal Law §207-c, which provided benefits to law enforcement personnel authorizes the appointing authority to (a) require such personnel injured in the line of duty to perform light duty when found medically qualified to do so and (b) under the appropriate circumstances, undergo surgery, where reasonable.

The key to requiring an individual to undergo surgery, said the court, is that §§207-a and 207-c both provide that its respective benefits may be withheld if the officer refuses to undergo surgery. The decision notes that the employer's physician "may attend any such injured or sick policeman, from time to time, for the purpose of providing medical, surgical or other treatment...."

The Court of Appeals observed that the §207-c further provides that anyone who refuses to accept "medical treatment or hospital care" waives the right to benefits under the section. A similar provision in §207-a applies where the injured employee is a firefighter.

The Sestito decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03528.htm

The Schenectady decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/199556585ny2d4801523