Retirement System member retroactively reinstated to Tier I membership not entitled to employee contributions he or she made to the Retirement System as a Tier III member

Retirement System member retroactively reinstated to Tier I membership not entitled to employee contributions he or she made to the Retirement System as a Tier III member

Price v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 2013 NY Slip Op 04405, Appellate Division, Third Department

An individual [Member] was employed in various positions by New York State public employers in 1968 until 1975 when he left public service. At no time during such period did Member join the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System [ERS] nor, according to the decision, was he advised that he was a “mandatory Tier 1 member” of ERS.

Member reentered New York State public employment in 1980 and joined ERS as a contributory Tier 3 member. In 1997, without notice to Member, ERS administratively granted him Tier 1 membership with service credit for the initial years he had worked (1968-1975). However, upon further review, ERS deemed that Member’s Tier 1 membership automatically terminated in 1975 for inactivity in accordance with the provisions of the Retirement and Social Security Law then in effect, thereby continuing him as a Tier III member of ERS.

Member subsequently applied for, and was approved for, reinstatement to Tier 1 pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law §645.* He then requested a refund of the contributions he had made since 1980 as a Tier 3 member.

ERS denied his request indicating that “[Member] did not qualify for a refund under the … statute pursuant to which he was reinstated,” (see Retirement and Social Security Law §645[2]). Member then commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Retirement System’s determination denying his request for a refund of the contributions he had made as a Tier 3 member prior to his reinstatement to Tier 1, a noncontributory tier, pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law §645.

The Appellate Division sustained ERS’s determination, explaining that  “Under the unambiguous terms of [Retirement and Social Security Law §645(2)], ‘[a]ny contribution made to [ERS] pursuant to Article [14] or [15] of this Chapter by a member who rejoined his or her current system on or after [July 27, 1976] shall not be refunded.”" [Emphasis supplied by the Appellate Division.]

Where, as here, said the court, "the Comptroller's application and interpretation of the relevant statutes are not 'irrational, unreasonable or contrary to the statutory language,' the determination will be upheld.”

As to “procedural difficulties” experienced by Member, the court said that “erroneous advice by [Member’s] employer, misplacement [of him] by [ERS] in a contributory tier or [his] delayed reinstatement to a noncontributory tier ‘cannot estop the Comptroller from performing his duties and denying any reinstatement [or refund of contributions] that is contrary to the statutes.’"

The Appellate Division also addressed the various provisions set out in the Retirement and Social Security Law addressing “vesting” of a member's ERS benefits under certain conditions, none of which “conditions,” said the court, were applicable in Member’s situation.

* Retirement and Social Security Law §645, which was adopted in 1998, allows current members of ERS who had reentered public service to apply for reinstatement to their original Tier membership status under certain circumstances.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04405.htm

Correction officers locked up for compulsory overtime

Correction officers locked up for compulsory overtime

Cacace v Seniuk, 104 Misc.2d 560

While a somewhat novel way to have overtime work performed, Supreme Court, Nassau County, held that correction officers compelled to work overtime were not denied their constitutional rights.

Although locked up in the jail, as they were during normal working hours, and denied the ability to leave without permission, Supreme Court ruled that such action was within the power of management.

The fact that the employees had received overtime pay or compensatory time off, together with a view that such a procedure was a reasonable and necessary limitation on the correction officers, was enough to support for the Court to hold that correction officers were not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief.

Indeed, said the court, “In the last analysis, it is doubtful whether it is within the competence of the judiciary to grant the injunctive relief requested in any event. The question of manpower and its deployment is essentially one of management prerogative solely within the discretion of the public employer.”

The Court also found that §161 of the Labor Law was not applicable to correction officers, explaining that a corrections officer is a “peace officer” and “clearly not an employee within the statutory definition, i.e., a “mechanic, workingman or laborer working for another for hire,” set out in §161.

A change in the professional obligation of employees in a collective bargaining unit negotiable

A change in the professional obligation of employees in a collective bargaining unit negotiable

PERB (Case U-4144)

The unilateral reduction of the school district’s administrators’ work year [professional obligation] from 11 to 10 months -- but requiring the performance of essentially the same service -- was held to be a violation of the school district’s duty to negotiate the change with the employee organization representing the administrators’ “negotiating unit”.

The school district was directed to reinstate the administrators’ 11-month professional obligation and pay any back salary due them.

In contrast, a PERB hearing officer held that the unilateral change in a district’s work day for teachers from 8 am to 3 pm to 8:30 am to 3:30 pm following good faith bargaining to impasse on the issue was not a violation of the Taylor Law even though the impasse had not been resolved at the time of the change by the district. (Case U-4294).

Jurisdiction of village school crossing guards

Jurisdiction of village school crossing guards

Informal Opinion of the Attorney General 2013-3

The Attorney General’s Assistant Solicitor General in Charge of Opinions, Kathryn Sheingold, advised the Village of Alden’s village attorney, Chris G. Trapp, Esq., that, consistent with General Municipal Law §208-a, a village school crossing guard may control traffic at an intersection within the village that does not abut school property if his or her exercise of such traffic control is to aid in protecting school children going to and from school.

The opinion is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinion/2013-3_pw.pdf

Employee’s prior disciplinary record considered in recommending an appropriate penalty after being found guilty of certain disciplinary charges

Employee’s prior disciplinary record considered in recommending an appropriate penalty after being found guilty of certain disciplinary charges

OATH Index No. 559/13

An OATH Administrative Law Judge found a housekeeping aide guilty of [1] laying down on a clean stretcher in a patient area to make a phone call during work hours and [2] failing to complete his assigned cleaning duties.

However ALJ Faye Lewis dismissed charges that Aide abandoned his post, was discourteous, and did not comply with a directive to clean certain areas in a medical unit.

Taking into consideration employee’s prior disciplinary record, which included 30-day suspensions, ALJ Lewis recommended a 45-day suspension.

The case usually cited as authority for considering the employee's personnel record in recommending a disciplinary penalty is Bigelow v Trustees of the Village of Gouverneur, 63 NY2d 470. Further, the employee’s consent is not required in order for the hearing officer or arbitrator to consider the employee’s personnel record in determining an appropriate penalty. 

However, in the event the employee's personnel records will be considered in determining the disciplinary penalty, he or she must be advised of that fact and given an opportunity to explain or rebut anything in that record.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/13_Cases/13-559.pdf

Removal of a public officer from his or her position by operation of law

Removal of a public officer from his or her position by operation of law

Greene v McGuire, 683 F.2d 32

§30 of the Public Officers Law provides for the automatic removal of an individual from his or her public office under certain conditions.

A federal district court held that a police officer who was removed from his position following his being convicted of a felony in accordance with Public Officer Law §30.1(e) was entitled to an administrative hearing on the question of reinstatement following the reversal of the conviction

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, indicating that as the state law automatically results in dismissal upon conviction, refusal to provide an administrative hearing following the reversal of the former police officer’s conviction did not deprive the former employee of a property right or liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment.

However, it should be noted that §30.1(e) provides in the event a public officer* is convicted of a “felony, or a crime involving a violation of his [or her] oath of office …. a non-elected official may apply for reinstatement to the appointing authority upon reversal or the vacating of such conviction where the conviction is the sole basis for the vacancy.”

The statute further provides that “After receipt of such application, the appointing authority shall afford such applicant a hearing to determine whether reinstatement is warranted.

“The record of the hearing shall include the final judgment of the court which reversed or vacated such conviction and may also include the entire employment history of the applicant and any other submissions which may form the basis of the grant or denial of reinstatement notwithstanding the reversal or vacating of such conviction.

“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, after review of such record, the appointing authority may, in its discretion, reappoint such non-elected official to his former office, or a similar office if his former office is no longer available. In the event of such reinstatement, the appointing authority may, in its discretion, award salary or compensation in full or in part for the period from the date such office became vacant to the date of reinstatement or any part thereof;”

A similar principle** was applied in a case where although a principal was initially recommended for tenure, the new superintendent recommended his termination on the grounds that a change in leadership was required.

While there was still 120 days left to the principal’s probationary period, his contract of employment expired and he was terminated by the School Board.

It was held that the principal was not entitled to a termination hearing pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law, nor did the earlier recommendation for tenure have any effect on the contract provision (See §1709, Education Law).

* A police officer is a public officer. Although all public officers are public employees, not all public employees are public officers.

** See Knight v. Wyandanch Union Free School District, affd. 56 NY2 628

An employee’s disability will not excuse his or her misconduct

An employee’s disability will not excuse his or her misconduct

2013 NY Slip Op 04703, Appellate Division, First Department

The employee [Employee] was served with disciplinary charges alleging misconduct. His defense: his conduct was involuntary because it was the result of illnesses, Tourette's Syndrome and an obsessive-compulsive disorder, from which he suffers, and thus does not constitute misconduct.

A Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO) found Employee guilty and that his misconduct was only partially attributable to these disorders. Based on the JHO’s findings, the appointing authority dismissed Employee from his position.

The Appellate Division, finding that “substantial evidence supports [the agency’s] determination that [Employee] engaged in the misconduct alleged, dismissed Employee’s appeal. The court said that Employee’s argument that his conduct “was involuntary because it was the result of illnesses …  and therefore does not constitute misconduct is unavailing.”

Noting that the JHO found that Employee's conduct was only partially attributable to the disorders he claimed to suffer, the Appellate Division said that “the law does not immunize disabled employees from discipline or discharge for incidents of misconduct in the workplace,” citing Hazen v Hill Bettz and Nash, 92 AD3d 162, leave to appeal denied, 19 NY3d 812.

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal from his position, the Appellate Division, citing Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222, held that under the circumstances, the penalty of termination is not "so disproportionate as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04703.htm

==============================

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - A 600+ page guide to penalties imposed on public employees in New York State found guilty of selected acts of misconduct. For more information, click onhttp://nypplarchives.blogspot.com/

==============================