Arbitrator’s disciplinary decision must be sustained by the court if there is a rational basis for, and sufficient evidence to support, the determination

Arbitrator’s disciplinary decision must be sustained by the court if there is a rational basis for, and sufficient evidence to support, the determination

Matter of Matter of Trupiano v Board of Educ. of E. Meadow Union Free School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 08601, Appellate Division, Second Department

The §3020-a hearing officer sustained a charge of misconduct against the teacher and directed the placement of a counseling memo in her personnel file as the penalty to be imposed.

The charges filed against the teacher followed her participation in a teachers' union action involving approximately 15 teachers who parked their cars along the street in front of the school just before the start of the school day. The Board alleged that this "resulted in children being dropped off in the middle of the street which resulted in an otherwise avoidable and unnecessary health and safety hazard."

In response to Article 75 petitions filed, respectively, by the teacher and the Board, Supreme Court granted the teacher’s petition to vacate the penalty portion of the hearing officers determination and denied the Board’s petition to vacate the award on the ground that the penalty imposed was too lenient. Supreme Court decided that the hearing officer's fact-findings did not support his finding of culpability, and thus, there was no rational basis for finding the teacher guilty of the disciplinary charges.

The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s ruling, explaining that where the parties are compelled to engage in arbitration by statute (see Education Law § 3020-a[5]), "judicial review under CPLR Article 75 is broad, requiring that the award be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence in the record." Accordingly, to be sustained, the arbitrator’s award "must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious."

Here, the hearing officer concluded that the undisputed "arrangement of cars in which [the teacher] participated created a safety hazard. Many students . . . could not be dropped off at curbside. Instead, the cars had to stop in the middle of the road and students had to walk in the road to enter the school."

Under these circumstances, said the court, there was a rational basis for, and sufficient evidence to support, the hearing officer's conclusion that the petitioner was culpable of the charge preferred against her. Accordingly, “Supreme Court erred in granting the [teacher’s] petition to vacate the determination on the basis that it was arbitrary and capricious.

Further, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court should not have denied the Board’s petition on the grounds that it was “moot” but, rather, should have denied it on the merits as the penalty imposed by the arbitrator, placing a counseling memo in the teacher’s personnel file was within the arbitrator's power and did not violate public policy.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08601.htm

PERB determinations

PERB determinations

Use of automobiles

The Public Employment Relations Board has ruled that the use of automobiles is an item subject to mandatory negotiations. In a case involving the City of Buffalo (Case U-4473). PERB held that the City could not unilaterally restrict employees from using their automobiles in connection with their work as such action was a “unilateral discontinuation of a past practice.” Buffalo had stopped permitting certain employees to charge for the use of their car in connection with travel on the job and offered “bus fare” instead. In another case, PERB held that Nassau County could not stop its “past practice” of assigning certain workers County owned vehicles on a 24 hour basis without first negotiating the matter with the Union.

No smoking areas

The Steuben-Alleganay BOCES had designated certain areas as smoking areas for its employees, prohibiting smoking in other parts of the building. When the Union challenged the work rule, PERB affirmed a hearing officer’s ruling that the employer could not unilaterally restrict employees to smoking in specific areas of a building, as employee smoking is a mandatory item of negotiations under the Taylor Law (Case U-4259)

Two different complaints; two different forums

Two different complaints; two different forums

Gondola v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 80 A.D.2d 600

When an employee attempted to maintain a complaint before the Division of Human Rights based on alleged discrimination and at the same time sue the employer for alleged breach of contract, the Supreme Court held that Section 297.9 of the Executive Law prohibited the employee from seeking relief on a single discriminatory grievance in two forums.

The Appellate Division reversed, pointing out that Section 296.9 “cannot be employed to bar an aggrieved person from maintaining a proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights based upon a discrimination complaint, while contemporaneously maintaining an action in the courts based on the alleged breach of an employment contract”, citing Matter of Richardson Employment Agency, 40 AD2d 585.

Pre-employment physical examination not employment

Pre-employment physical examination not employment

Rastaetter v. Charles S. Wilson Memorial Hospital, 436 N.Y.S.2d 47

An individual undergoing a required pre-employment physical examination is not to be considered an employee within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law in the event the person is injured during the physical examination.

In Rastaetter the Appellate Division held that the principal factors to be considered in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists under such law are the right to control, the method of payment, who furnishes the equipment, the right to discharge and the relative nature of the work.

The court then said “Clearly, these factors demonstrate that a pre-employment physical examination would not be covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law.”

The court also held that this was not a “try-out” situation, as the individual was not “trying out” for employment by working in any manner citing Matter of Smith, 4 AD2d 12 and Matter of Bode, 9 AD2d 969.

Court upholds appointing authority's rejection of hearing officer findings concerning employee's residence

Court upholds appointing authority's rejection of hearing officer findings concerning employee's residence

In the Matter of Linda Ziehm, 90 A.D.2d 677, Affd, 59 N.Y.2d 757

When the Commissioner of Administration rejected a hearing officer’s recommendation that an employee be reinstated to her position, the Union sued on behalf of the employee.

The case arose following the finding by the Commissioner that Ziehm (who was now living in Lackawanna) had forfeited her position by failing to maintain a permanent residence in the City of Buffalo (Buffalo City Ordinance, Chapter 1, Section 4,).

The question before the hearing officer was whether Ziehm came within the provisions of a Taylor Law contact which excused “any employees presently living outside the City” (adopted effective January 1, 1977) from the requirements of the Ordinance.

Although the hearing officer found that she was living outside the City on January 1, the Commissioner held that she was a resident of the City on that date. This determination made the contact provision inapplicable to her.

The Appellate Division concluded that the record contained substantial evidence affording a rational basis for the Commissioner’s finding that Ziehm was a City resident from 1973 until June 1979 and that she did not qualify for the exemption contained in the collective bargaining agreement and upheld his determination.

Do it now grieve it later rule applied in a challenge to an administrative decision

Do it now grieve it later rule applied in a challenge to an administrative decision

Hurwitz v. Regan , 90 A.D.2d 659, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 58 N.Y.2d 609

As a general rule in labor relations, when there is a supervisor/employee difference of opinion concerning an assignment, unless a dangerous situation exists, the employee should “do it now; grieve it later.”

Apparently the same rule will apply in connection with some administrative decisions as well.

When a former member of the New York State Employees’ Retirement System [ERS] was re-employed by a public employer, he sought to reinstate his former Tier I ERS membership.

ERS said no, explaining that he had cease to be a member of ERS in 1970 and had to rejoin as a Tier II member. He finally joined the System as a Tier II member in late 1975.

When the Retirement and Social Security Law was amended in 1977 (C. 973; L. 1977) to allow Tier II members who had been Tier I members who “rejoined within five years” to get back into Tier I, the employee again attempted to regain his Tier I membership. He, again, was refused by ERS and sued.

The Appellate Division noted that the employee had not rejoined ERS until more than five years had passed.

Had he filed a Tier II application in 1974 while contesting the ERS determination concerning the denial of his application for Tier I status, presumably he would have met the requirement of the 1977 amendment.

Probably it is best to do something “under protest” and argue about it later, especially when the consequences of inaction may cause even greater problems.

Court of Appeals rules on seniority for layoff

Court of Appeals rules on seniority for layoff

Hondzinski v. County of Erie, 57 NY2d 715

As more and more jurisdictions cut back in personnel, seniority for layoff purposes becomes a critical issue. The Court of Appeals recently decided a case involving the crediting of seniority upon the “grandfathering” of an employee into the competitive class.

The decision indicates that when a “civil” deputy sheriff position was, by local law, placed in the competitive class* an incumbent who had been in the position for more than one year proceeding the change in jurisdictional classification was entitled to seniority for layoff purposes from the date when the position was placed in the competitive class.

Hondzinski, however, had claimed that his seniority should run from the date of his original appointment as a civil deputy in 1960.

Actually there would be two dates for seniority for the purposes of layoff in this type of situation.

The “1973” date would control in determining seniority for the entire work force, thereby protecting the rights of all competitive class employees.

The original date of appointment of Hondzinski as a civil deputy could be used to determine seniority for the “grandfathered” deputy sheriffs “as among themselves.”

Section 45 of the Civil Service Law provides for such a dual test with respect to the employees of a private employer upon its acquisition by government.

 If a layoff affects a “1973 grandfathered” deputy sheriff, then a further determination as to the least senior of these “1973 deputies” based on their original date of appointment as civil deputies could be made for the purposes of determining which “1973 deputy” has greater rights “as among themselves” to retention in the face of a layoff. In effect, there would be a “seniority list” within a “seniority list.”

* So-called Flaherty deputy sheriffs -- civil deputies, as distinguished from "criminal deputies" --had been exempted from the civil service system on the grounds that the sheriff who had hired them was personally liable for any misconduct or negligence of his or her civil deputies. The term "Flaherty deputies" was applied to such employees of the sheriff following a decision by the Court of Appeals holding that the fact that the sheriff was personally liable for the acts of the civil deputies required their exemption from the civil service system of selection, appointment and promotion (Flaherty v Milliken, 193 NY 564). The New York State Civil Service Department decided that Flaherty no longer applied following a 1990 amendment to the State Constitution that deleted the words "The county shall never be made responsible for the acts of the sheriff." As the amendment allowed a county to assume liability for the acts of a sheriff's civil deputies, the department reasoned that where the county assumed such liability the rationale for the exemption of Flaherty deputies from the civil service law was no longer valid. Accordingly, it was determined that effective January 1, 1990, Civil Service examinations would be required for the appointment and promotion of these civil deputies.