Compelling arbitration in cases where the grievance is based on the unilateral act or omission of a third party

Compelling arbitration in cases where the grievance is based on the unilateral act or omission of a third party
Remsen CSD v Remsen Teachers Asso., 270 AD2d 796 [Decided with In re Mohawk Central School District, 270 AD2d 798]

In Richfield Springs CSD v Allen, 270 AD2d 734, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the fact that a third party provides the employer’s negotiated fringe benefit does not insulate the employer from its duty to negotiate changes in the terms and conditions of employment if third party unilaterally decides to change the benefit.

In Richfield, the union was concerned that a change in a prescription drug plan provided by a new carrier would be inferior to the coverage provided by the old carrier.

The Appellate Division held that the grievance challenging the change in the carrier of the prescription drug plan covering its members was subject to arbitration under the contract grievance procedure set out in the Taylor Law agreement.

A substitute for the carrier of the prescription drug plan specified in the agreement was changed without the Association’s consent. This, said the court, supported the claim of an alleged violation of the Agreement which the parties clearly and unequivocally agreed to arbitrate.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, came to the same conclusion in the Remsen case.

Remsen Teachers Association president Nora Revere sued to compel the district to submit a grievance alleging a violation of its collective bargaining agreement. The district said that any change was beyond its control since the alleged violation resulted from the third party replacing its then current insurance carrier for its prescription drug plan with a different carrier.

According to the decision, the fact that the changes were made by an entity that was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement did not justify granting the district’s motion to stay arbitration.

In view of the parties’ broad arbitration agreement and the provisions relating to health insurance benefits, the court ruled that the alleged violation of the collective bargaining agreement resulting from changes in prescription drug benefits presents an arbitrable issue.

The Fourth Department pointed out that whether the district possesses authority or control over the amount or type of health insurance benefits provided to its employees, and whether the district the collective bargaining agreement with respect to maintaining a certain level of benefits, is for the arbitrator to determine.


.

Consolidating positions in the public service

Consolidating positions in the public service
Informal opinions of the Attorney General, Informal Opinion 93-2
Opinions of the Commissioner of Education, Opinion 9994

In view of the discussions focusing attaining economies in the public service, the following views of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Education may be of interest with respect to suggestions involving the consolidation of certain positions in the public service,

The Attorney General has concluded that Section 58.1-c of the Civil Service Law requires municipalities to maintain separate offices of police commissioner and of police chief and thus the City of Schenectady could not combine the positions of police commissioner and chief of police nor abolish the position of chief of police [Informal Opinions of the Attorney General 93-2].

Although the Commissioner of Education earlier ruled that each school must have a principal of its own [Opinions of the Commissioner of Education #9994], which is reflected in 8 NYCRR 100.2(a), whereby “The board of education of each school district shall employ and assign to each school under its supervision a full-time principal holding the appropriate certification as required pursuant to section 80.4(b) of this Title,” the Commissioner may approve modifications in the management of such schools “Upon the submission of evidence that there are circumstances which do not justify the assignment of a principal to a particular school, or that another mode of building administration would be more effective….”
.

Agency’s failure to respond to requests for information does not toll the Statute of Limitations for filing a timely petition

Agency’s failure to respond to requests for information does not toll the Statute of Limitations for filing a timely petition
Troeller v Klein, 2011 NY Slip Op 01874, Appellate Division, First Department

Robert J. Troeller sued the New York City Department of Education [DOE] claiming a breach a stipulation of settlement between the Union and DOE.

Troeller contended that the agreement between the parties was "quite different" from the way DOE was interpreting it. However as the petition to deem the notice timely was brought more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action and his petition was dismissed by the court.

One of the arguments advanced by Troeller: DOE should be estopped from asserting a “late notice of claim” defense because DOE did not respond to his requests for certain information. The Appellate Division said that this argument “is unavailing.”

The court explained that "An estoppel cannot be founded upon [a defendant school district’s] failure to communicate with [a plaintiff] in response to . . . bills”, citing Amsterdam Wrecking & Salvage Co. v Greater Amsterdam School Dist., 83 AD2d 654, affd 56 NY2d 828. “A fortiori*,” the court continued, “an estoppel cannot be founded on [DOE’s] delay in responding to [Troeller’s] requests for information."

* Latin: For or with even stronger reason.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01874.htm
.

Competing union interests

Competing union interests
Buffalo CSD v Local 264, 270 AD2d 814

Suppose an arbitration award in favor of an employee in one collective bargaining unit adversely affects an employee of the same employer in another collective bargaining unit. What can the second employee’s union do about the award?

This was the issue considered by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in the Buffalo City School District case. Its conclusion: In this instance, nothing!

The two unions involved, AFSCME Local 264 [Local 264] and the Professional, Clerical and Technical Employees Association [PCTEA], represented different negotiating units of individuals employed by the Buffalo City School District.

The PCTEA collective bargaining agreement included a provision that gave its unit members preference in selection for promotion. Here the first and second ranking eligibles on a promotion list were Local 264 unit members; third on the list was a PCTEA unit member.

The Board promoted the first eligible on the list, a member of the unit represented by Local 264, to the vacancy. Its action, of course, was consistent with the exercise of its discretion within the meaning of Section 61 of the Civil Service Law -- the so-called rule of three.

PCTEA, however, filed a contract grievance, claiming Buffalo had violated the collective bargaining agreement when it appointed the Local 264 unit member and ultimately the matter went to arbitration. The arbitrator sustained PCTEA position, ruling that the Board, by appointing a Local 264 unit member to the vacancy had:

1. Violated its collective bargaining agreement with PCTEA;

2. Violated a past practice; and

3. Failed to comply with the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Professional, Clerical and Technical Employees Association v Buffalo Board of Education, 90 NY2d 364.

In PCTEA v Buffalo, the Court of Appeals held that no strong public policy prohibits an appointing authority from agreeing through collective negotiations to give promotional preference to certain members on an eligible list where a probationary period precedes their permanent appointment.*

In contrast to the situation in Buffalo v Local 264, in the earlier case, PCTEA v Buffalo, the highest-scoring candidate on the promotion eligible list for the position, as well as the next four individuals on the promotion list, were all PCTEA unit members.

The arbitrator directed the Board to promote the PCTEA member, who was ranked third on the list, to the position with back pay, which, of course, meant that the Local 264 member would be terminated from the position.

The Board brought an Article 75 action in an effort to vacate the award.

Local 264 tried to intervene in the litigation on behalf of its member, but the Appellate Division said that it did not have any standing to do so. The Appellate Division also reversed the lower court’s ruling vacating the award.

Why didn’t Local 264 have standing? Because, the Appellate Division explained, [a]lthough the rights of the employees represented by Local 264 are adversely affected by the arbitration award, Local 264 was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement at issue or the arbitration.

Despite the award’s adverse impact on a member of Local 264 and the contractual preference favoring PCTEA members for selection for promotion, the court said that no strong public policy was violated justifying the vacating of the award.

Further, said the court, the fact that Local 264 members were first and second on the promotion list did not change the result, rejecting the Board’s argument that the arbitration award violated the merit and fitness mandate set out in Article V, Section 6 of the State Constitution.

While the member of Local 264 who was first on the promotion list was actually selected for the appointment, the court said that Article V, Section 6, does not require that the top candidate be selected. The negotiated agreement, however, mandated that the PCTEA member highest on the list, and otherwise reachable for appointment, be selected for the appointment.

Since Section 61 of the Civil Service Law permits the selection of one of the top three candidates from the eligible list, the award does not automatically bar members of Local 264 from promotional positions for which a member of PCTEA might be considered because a PCTEA member may not be one of the top three candidates.

The court’s rationale for upholding such a provision contained in a collective bargaining agreement:

The promotional practices of a public employer constitute a term or condition of employment that may be determined through collective bargaining under the Taylor Law. Accordingly, in the absence of a prohibition in statutory or decisional law, or countervailing public policy, provisions which relate to the use of preferences in the promotion of unit members based on examination scores concern a term or condition of employment and thus are a proper subject for collective bargaining and subsequent resolution of disputes through contract arbitration procedures.

* Randall comments: The decision states that the appointment of the PCTEA unit member does not become a permanent appointment until the expiration of a 60-day probationary period. Thus, said the court, the Board has the opportunity to assess other character traits that may have been unmeasurable by the competitive examination.

I believe that it is more accurate to characterize such an employee’s status as permanent subject to the satisfactory completion of a probationary period as all such probationary appointments are permanent appointments or, under certain circumstances, a contingent permanent appointment.

As an example, most probationary periods are set with a minimum and a maximum period of probation. Courts have held that a probationary employee in the competitive class who is to be dismissed before completing his or her minimum period of probation is entitled to notice and hearing within the meaning of Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Essentially individuals holding permanent appointment in the competitive class, certain employees in the non-competitive class, veterans who served in time of war and exempt volunteer firefighters are covered by Section 75.

A probationer may be dismissed without notice and hearing after completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation for the position. If the employee is retained after completing the maximum period of probation, he or she has acquired tenure in the position for the purposes of Section 75.

Another example: for the purpose determining seniority in layoffs pursuant to Sections 80 and 80-a of the Civil Service Law, the individual’s initial date of uninterrupted permanent service controls. Such seniority runs from the date on which the employee commenced his or her original probationary period, not the date on which he or she satisfactorily completed that probationary period.
.

Administrative decisions and actions must be made in compliance to the law

Administrative decisions and actions must be made in compliance to the law
Cimino v Grasso, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, #14,319

Michael J. Cimino asked the Commissioner of Education to remove members of the board of education and the superintendent of the Plainedge Union Free School District.

The complaint: the board and the superintendent had spent $79,000 to illegally construct and equip a room for the board without first obtaining voter approval, without getting competitive bids and without the board adopting a resolution authorizing the expenditures.

Cimino also alleged that expenditures for the purchase of computers, computer desks and online service for home use by board members constitutes an unconstitutional gift of public monies [Article VIII, Section 1].

Contending that all the expenditures were made in good faith and for legitimate district interests, school superintendent Gene Grasso took full responsibility for the decision to fund the projects with operation and maintenance monies rather than as capital expenses. He also said that the board had absolutely no involvement in the project.

The Commissioner, with certain exceptions, said that serious violations of law and policy have occurred in this matter. However, he also stated that removal from office is a drastic remedy that should be taken only in extreme circumstances. As there was no evidence that the superintendent or board members willfully violated the law and the construction constituted a substantial and continuing benefit to the district, the Commissioner declined to exercise his power of removal.

The superintendent and the board members were told to be absolutely scrupulous in their future compliance with the law, as additional violations of this kind may well subject them to removal.
.