Claiming entitlement to payment for unused vacation and sick leave credit upon resignation
Sherwood v Town of Lancaster, 2010 NY Slip Op 06057, Decided on July 9, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Richard J. Sherwood “abruptly resigned” from his position of Town Attorney, Town of Lancaster, “in order to avoid his imminent termination.”*
Sherwood subsequently filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking credit for unused vacation and sick leave accrued as of the date of his retirement from his position as Town Attorney. Supreme Court ruled that Sherwood was ineligible to receive a credit for unused vacation and sick leave that he had accrued and he appealed.
The Appellate Division noted that the controlling provision set out in a collective bargaining agreement** addressing the liquidation of accrued but unused vacation days in Sherwood’s situation provided that "[i]f an employee is separated from Town service for any reason except termination for cause or resignation on less than ten working days' notice, he/she shall be paid in full for any unused vacation to which he/she is entitled."
It was undisputed that Sherwood gave less than 10 working days' notice of his resignation. The Appellate Division said that Sherwood would have been entitled to a credit for unused vacation days that he accrued had he not resigned and simply awaited the Town Board's decision not to reappoint him. “As he instead chose to resign effective immediately, he is not entitled to that credit.”
However, said the court, Sherwood also contended that he was entitled to “a credit for accrued but unused sick leave pursuant to Article 5 of the [collective bargaining agreement].” Section 5.4.1 provides of the CBA provides that "[p]rior to the retirement, the employee may apply to the Town Board for a lump sum payment of sixty (60%) percent of the cash value of his or her accumulated sick leave as of the date of retirement."
The Appellate Division said that Supreme Court erred in determining that "[s]ection 5.4 of the [CBA] renders eligible only those employees who have actually applied for retirement through the NYS Employee's Retirement System to receive a lump sum payment for accrued sick time." Under the facts regarding Sherwood’s leaving town service, the Appellate Division concluded that the CBA provisions concerning retirement unambiguously apply him” and thus he was a credit for unused sick leave that he accrued.
The court modified the lower court’s decision by reinstating Sherwood's claim for unused sick leave credit under the CBA as well as Retirement and Social Security Law §41(j)*** for the period running from the date of his appointment as Town Attorney effective January 1, 1996, through the date of his retirement, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to determine “the number of accumulated sick days or hours, if any,” for which Sherwood is entitled to credit.
* Sherwood’s resignation on January 7, 2008 was precipitated by his learning that the Town Board, meeting later that same day, would not reappoint him to the position of Town Attorney.
** The Town Board had earlier adopted a resolution making the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the Town and Civil Service Employees Association for the Town's employees in the "White Collar Unit" applicable to unrepresented employees such as Sherwood.
*** Retirement and Social Security Law §41(j) provides for an “Allowance for unused sick leave for members in the employ of the state.” §2.8 of the Retirement and Social Security Law defines the term “employer” as “The state, a participating employer, and any other unit of government or organization obligated or agreeing, under this article, to make contributions to the retirement system on behalf of its employees.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06057.htm
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and in other jurisdictions in general.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL
July 14, 2010
A name clearing hearing available if adverse allegations are shared with another agency or administrator without the assurance of confidentiality
A name clearing hearing available if adverse allegations are shared with another agency or administrator without the assurance of confidentiality
Vandine v Greece Cent. School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 06059, Decided on July 9, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Douglas W. Vandine commenced filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order directing the Greece CSD to hold a name-clearing hearing with respect to allegations associated with his termination from his probationary position with the district.
Supreme Court dismissed Vandine’s petition but the Appellate Division ruled that this was incorrect.
The Appellate Division noted that in the event "a government employee is dismissed for stigmatizing reasons that seriously imperil [his or her] opportunity to acquire future employment, the individual is entitled to an opportunity to refute the charge” if he or she demonstrates that there "has been a public disclosure by the employer of stigmatizing reasons for the discharge."
Typically, said the court, “the submission of a complaint to the New York State Department of Education (SED) based upon the allegations underlying [Vandine's] termination does not constitute such a public disclosure.”
Here, however, the court decided that although a confidential communication with an authorized governmental administrator or agency does not constitute public disclosure, here SED may determine that, based on allegations in the complaint, there exists a substantial question concerning Vandine's moral character that ultimately could result in the revocation of his teaching certificate. Accordingly the Appellate Division concluded that as 8 NYCRR 83.1 et seq,. the applicable regulations, do not specifically provide for confidentiality, there is a potential for public disclosure sufficient to establish Vandine's entitlement to a name-clearing hearing.
Reversing the lower court’s decision, the Appellate Division explained that a name clearing hearing was justified because under the controlling regulations Vandine would be given a hearing on the complaint submitted to SED by the school district only if a determination is made that the allegations raise a substantial question concerning his moral character.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that as Vandine is not guaranteed a hearing on the complaint, he may be foreclosed from any opportunity to refute the allegations absent a name-clearing hearing held by the school district.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06059.htm
Vandine v Greece Cent. School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 06059, Decided on July 9, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Douglas W. Vandine commenced filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order directing the Greece CSD to hold a name-clearing hearing with respect to allegations associated with his termination from his probationary position with the district.
Supreme Court dismissed Vandine’s petition but the Appellate Division ruled that this was incorrect.
The Appellate Division noted that in the event "a government employee is dismissed for stigmatizing reasons that seriously imperil [his or her] opportunity to acquire future employment, the individual is entitled to an opportunity to refute the charge” if he or she demonstrates that there "has been a public disclosure by the employer of stigmatizing reasons for the discharge."
Typically, said the court, “the submission of a complaint to the New York State Department of Education (SED) based upon the allegations underlying [Vandine's] termination does not constitute such a public disclosure.”
Here, however, the court decided that although a confidential communication with an authorized governmental administrator or agency does not constitute public disclosure, here SED may determine that, based on allegations in the complaint, there exists a substantial question concerning Vandine's moral character that ultimately could result in the revocation of his teaching certificate. Accordingly the Appellate Division concluded that as 8 NYCRR 83.1 et seq,. the applicable regulations, do not specifically provide for confidentiality, there is a potential for public disclosure sufficient to establish Vandine's entitlement to a name-clearing hearing.
Reversing the lower court’s decision, the Appellate Division explained that a name clearing hearing was justified because under the controlling regulations Vandine would be given a hearing on the complaint submitted to SED by the school district only if a determination is made that the allegations raise a substantial question concerning his moral character.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that as Vandine is not guaranteed a hearing on the complaint, he may be foreclosed from any opportunity to refute the allegations absent a name-clearing hearing held by the school district.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06059.htm
The three-year statute of limitations for disqualifying an employee pursuant to Civil Service Law §50(4) does not apply in cases involving fraud
The three-year statute of limitations for disqualifying an employee pursuant to Civil Service Law §50(4) does not apply in cases involving fraud
Urciuoli v Department of Citywide Admin. Servs., 2010 NY Slip Op 05876, Decided on July 1, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department
The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services advised Gerard Urciuoli that it was retroactively rescinding its approval his application for employment as a New York City police officer and decertifying that he was qualified for such an appointment, thereby effectively terminating his employment. Urciuoli was also advised that he could appeal the Department of Citywide Administration’s determination to the New York City Civil Service Commission.
Instead of appealing to the Commission, Urciuoli opted to file his appeal with Supreme Court. Supreme Court dismissed his petition and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that Urciuoli had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, thus foreclosing judicial review of the matter.
As to Urciuoli claim that “under Civil Service Law §50(4), respondents were required to rescind his application within three years of the triggering event,” the court said that it “declined to review that claim in the interest of justice….” However, said the Appellate Division, as “an alternative holding,” it found that the also lacks merit.
§50(4), said the court, permits the disqualification of an employee beyond three years in the event of an applicant's fraudulent misstatement or omission of material facts. Here documentary evidence amply established that Urciuoli “deliberately concealed his arrest in Jamaica in connection with charges that he possessed, was dealing in, and tried to export a significant quantity of marijuana.”
The Appellate Division said that this “deliberate concealment and omissions of relevant information” were designed to fraudulently ensure that he obtained, and then retained, his employment as a police officer, and justified his termination.
§50(4), in pertinent part, provides that “Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision or any other law, the state civil service department or appropriate municipal commission may investigate the qualifications and background of an eligible after he has been appointed from the list, and upon finding facts which if known prior to appointment, would have warranted his disqualification, or upon a finding of illegality, irregularity or fraud of a substantial nature in his application, examination or appointment, may revoke such eligible's certification and appointment and direct that his employment be terminated, provided, however, that no such certification shall be revoked or appointment terminated more than three years after it is made, except in the case of fraud [emphasis supplied].
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_05876.htm
Urciuoli v Department of Citywide Admin. Servs., 2010 NY Slip Op 05876, Decided on July 1, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department
The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services advised Gerard Urciuoli that it was retroactively rescinding its approval his application for employment as a New York City police officer and decertifying that he was qualified for such an appointment, thereby effectively terminating his employment. Urciuoli was also advised that he could appeal the Department of Citywide Administration’s determination to the New York City Civil Service Commission.
Instead of appealing to the Commission, Urciuoli opted to file his appeal with Supreme Court. Supreme Court dismissed his petition and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that Urciuoli had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, thus foreclosing judicial review of the matter.
As to Urciuoli claim that “under Civil Service Law §50(4), respondents were required to rescind his application within three years of the triggering event,” the court said that it “declined to review that claim in the interest of justice….” However, said the Appellate Division, as “an alternative holding,” it found that the also lacks merit.
§50(4), said the court, permits the disqualification of an employee beyond three years in the event of an applicant's fraudulent misstatement or omission of material facts. Here documentary evidence amply established that Urciuoli “deliberately concealed his arrest in Jamaica in connection with charges that he possessed, was dealing in, and tried to export a significant quantity of marijuana.”
The Appellate Division said that this “deliberate concealment and omissions of relevant information” were designed to fraudulently ensure that he obtained, and then retained, his employment as a police officer, and justified his termination.
§50(4), in pertinent part, provides that “Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision or any other law, the state civil service department or appropriate municipal commission may investigate the qualifications and background of an eligible after he has been appointed from the list, and upon finding facts which if known prior to appointment, would have warranted his disqualification, or upon a finding of illegality, irregularity or fraud of a substantial nature in his application, examination or appointment, may revoke such eligible's certification and appointment and direct that his employment be terminated, provided, however, that no such certification shall be revoked or appointment terminated more than three years after it is made, except in the case of fraud [emphasis supplied].
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_05876.htm
July 13, 2010
Determining whether a provision in a collective bargaining agreement is subject to arbitration
Determining whether a provision in a collective bargaining agreement is subject to arbitration
Matter of Village of Johnson City v Johnson City Firefighters Assn., Local 921 IAFF, 2010 NY Slip Op 06034, decided on July 8, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department
The collective bargaining agreement between the Johnson City Firefighters Association, Local 921 IAFF and the Village of Johnson City included a grievance procedure that provided that disputes "involving the interpretation or application of any provisions of [the CBA]" are subject to binding arbitration.”
Other provisions in the collective bargaining agreement provided that the Village [1] will not "lay-off any member of the bargaining unit" and [2] is not "required to 'back fill' hire additional members to meet staffing level of expired agreement."
When the Village Board voted to eliminate the then vacant position of Assistant Chief, Local 921 filed a grievance and ultimately served a demand for arbitration upon the Village and the Public Employment Relations Board.
The Village filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking to permanently stay the arbitration. Supreme Court holding that the grievance filed by the Local was subject to arbitration, denied the Village's application to stay arbitration, and granted the Union's cross claim to compel arbitration. The Village appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division said that a two-part test is used to determine whether a grievance may be arbitrated: [1] Is there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance? and [2] Does the CBA indicate that the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue?
Applying the first test, the Appellate Division said that contrary to the Village's claim that arbitration of the issue is barred, “Although public employers have the ‘undisputed management prerogative’ to eliminate civil service positions … ‘it is clear that a public employer is permitted to voluntarily agree to submit controversies over staff size or minimum staffing levels to arbitration.’"
Citing its decision in a recent dispute involving the same CBA, Matter of Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 [Village of Johnson City], 72 AD3d 1235, in which it held that no conflict with Civil Service Law §80 or other statutory, decisional, or public policy prohibition barred arbitration of the Local's grievance against the Village's abolition of six firefighters' positions, the Appellate Division said that it found “no reason to conclude otherwise here.”
Turning to the second prong of the test, “did the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue," the court said the decision turns on “whether the parties have so agreed is limited to determin[ing] whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA."
Pointing out that the elimination of the vacant title of Assistant Chief caused no firefighter to lose employment and that the Local “concedes that the clause in the CBA providing that the Village will ‘not lay-off any member of the bargaining unit’ is not implicated,” the Appellate Division said that it could not agree that there was any "reasonable relationship" between the parties' dispute and any provision of the CBA.
The court also rejected the Local’s theory that eliminating the Assistant Chief position could potentially violate the CBS's out-of-title work provision if the Village assigned a firefighter to carry out the Assistant Chief's duties, holding that such an argument “is entirely speculative on this record.”
In the words of the court: “The CBA requires arbitration of any grievance involving the interpretation or application of any of its provisions. The CBA does not refer, explicitly or implicitly, to the elimination of vacant positions; thus, resolution of the parties' dispute does not involve interpreting or applying any of its provisions, and no breach of the CBA has been effectively alleged. In such circumstances, even a broad clause like the one at issue here cannot be construed to require arbitration.”
Reversing Supreme Court’s granting the Local cross-petition demanding arbitration, the Appellate Divisions said that Village’s application to stay arbitration was improperly denied and granted its petition to stay arbitration.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06034.htm
Matter of Village of Johnson City v Johnson City Firefighters Assn., Local 921 IAFF, 2010 NY Slip Op 06034, decided on July 8, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department
The collective bargaining agreement between the Johnson City Firefighters Association, Local 921 IAFF and the Village of Johnson City included a grievance procedure that provided that disputes "involving the interpretation or application of any provisions of [the CBA]" are subject to binding arbitration.”
Other provisions in the collective bargaining agreement provided that the Village [1] will not "lay-off any member of the bargaining unit" and [2] is not "required to 'back fill' hire additional members to meet staffing level of expired agreement."
When the Village Board voted to eliminate the then vacant position of Assistant Chief, Local 921 filed a grievance and ultimately served a demand for arbitration upon the Village and the Public Employment Relations Board.
The Village filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking to permanently stay the arbitration. Supreme Court holding that the grievance filed by the Local was subject to arbitration, denied the Village's application to stay arbitration, and granted the Union's cross claim to compel arbitration. The Village appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division said that a two-part test is used to determine whether a grievance may be arbitrated: [1] Is there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance? and [2] Does the CBA indicate that the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue?
Applying the first test, the Appellate Division said that contrary to the Village's claim that arbitration of the issue is barred, “Although public employers have the ‘undisputed management prerogative’ to eliminate civil service positions … ‘it is clear that a public employer is permitted to voluntarily agree to submit controversies over staff size or minimum staffing levels to arbitration.’"
Citing its decision in a recent dispute involving the same CBA, Matter of Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 [Village of Johnson City], 72 AD3d 1235, in which it held that no conflict with Civil Service Law §80 or other statutory, decisional, or public policy prohibition barred arbitration of the Local's grievance against the Village's abolition of six firefighters' positions, the Appellate Division said that it found “no reason to conclude otherwise here.”
Turning to the second prong of the test, “did the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue," the court said the decision turns on “whether the parties have so agreed is limited to determin[ing] whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA."
Pointing out that the elimination of the vacant title of Assistant Chief caused no firefighter to lose employment and that the Local “concedes that the clause in the CBA providing that the Village will ‘not lay-off any member of the bargaining unit’ is not implicated,” the Appellate Division said that it could not agree that there was any "reasonable relationship" between the parties' dispute and any provision of the CBA.
The court also rejected the Local’s theory that eliminating the Assistant Chief position could potentially violate the CBS's out-of-title work provision if the Village assigned a firefighter to carry out the Assistant Chief's duties, holding that such an argument “is entirely speculative on this record.”
In the words of the court: “The CBA requires arbitration of any grievance involving the interpretation or application of any of its provisions. The CBA does not refer, explicitly or implicitly, to the elimination of vacant positions; thus, resolution of the parties' dispute does not involve interpreting or applying any of its provisions, and no breach of the CBA has been effectively alleged. In such circumstances, even a broad clause like the one at issue here cannot be construed to require arbitration.”
Reversing Supreme Court’s granting the Local cross-petition demanding arbitration, the Appellate Divisions said that Village’s application to stay arbitration was improperly denied and granted its petition to stay arbitration.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06034.htm
Any administrative action in the nature of discipline taken against a tenured teacher must be taken pursuant to Education Law §3020-a exclusively
Any administrative action in the nature of discipline taken against a tenured teacher must be taken pursuant to Education Law §3020-a exclusively
Matter of Rosenblum v New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd., 75 AD3d 426
When the New York City Office of Administrative Tribunals and Hearings attempted to conduct an administrative hearing involving Stephen Rosenblum’s alleged infraction of the City’s “conflict of interest” law, Rosenbaum obtained a court order from Supreme Court in the nature of a writ of prohibition.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination, holding that Supreme Court properly ruled that Rosenbaum could seek a judgment prohibiting the enforcement of the conflict of interest law of the City of New York against him through an OATH proceeding as he was a “tenured pedagogue employed by the Board of Education of the City of New York.”
The Appellate Division explained that “the exclusive avenue to discipline a tenured pedagogue is Education Law §3020-a and thus it would be violative of the Education Law to allow an OATH hearing which does not require the same procedural protections as those provided to a tenured educator by §3020-a.
In addition, the decision notes that there was no requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies as a condition precedent in an Article 78 proceeding “in the nature of a writ of prohibition,” where, as here, the "legality of the [underlying OATH] proceeding itself" was implicated.”
The writ of prohibition is one of a number of the ancient “English common law” writs and is issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the grounds that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction."
Other English common law writs include the writ of mandamus, granted by a court to compel an official to perform "acts that officials are duty-bound to perform;" the writ of injunction - a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the writ of "certiorari," compelling a lower court to send its record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of “quo warranto” [by what authority].
The Civil Practice Law and Rules sets out the modern equivalents of the surviving ancient common law writs.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_05875.htm
=======================
See The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State. For more information about this 1272 page e-book. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/
=======================
Matter of Rosenblum v New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd., 75 AD3d 426
When the New York City Office of Administrative Tribunals and Hearings attempted to conduct an administrative hearing involving Stephen Rosenblum’s alleged infraction of the City’s “conflict of interest” law, Rosenbaum obtained a court order from Supreme Court in the nature of a writ of prohibition.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination, holding that Supreme Court properly ruled that Rosenbaum could seek a judgment prohibiting the enforcement of the conflict of interest law of the City of New York against him through an OATH proceeding as he was a “tenured pedagogue employed by the Board of Education of the City of New York.”
The Appellate Division explained that “the exclusive avenue to discipline a tenured pedagogue is Education Law §3020-a and thus it would be violative of the Education Law to allow an OATH hearing which does not require the same procedural protections as those provided to a tenured educator by §3020-a.
In addition, the decision notes that there was no requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies as a condition precedent in an Article 78 proceeding “in the nature of a writ of prohibition,” where, as here, the "legality of the [underlying OATH] proceeding itself" was implicated.”
The writ of prohibition is one of a number of the ancient “English common law” writs and is issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the grounds that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction."
Other English common law writs include the writ of mandamus, granted by a court to compel an official to perform "acts that officials are duty-bound to perform;" the writ of injunction - a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the writ of "certiorari," compelling a lower court to send its record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of “quo warranto” [by what authority].
The Civil Practice Law and Rules sets out the modern equivalents of the surviving ancient common law writs.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_05875.htm
=======================
See The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State. For more information about this 1272 page e-book. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/
=======================
Continuation of employment in a position upon its jurisdictional reclassification to the competitive class
Continuation of employment in a position upon its jurisdictional reclassification to the competitive class
Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Mennillo, 38 A.D.3d 1113
Suzanne Burns was permanently appointed to the noncompetitive position of computer aide by the City of Schenectady in 2000. About four years later the Schenectady County Civil Service Commission jurisdictionally reclassified the position into the competitive class. The Commission then told Burns that she would be required to qualify by competitive examination in order to continue in the jurisdictionally reclassified position.
Burns sued, contending that she attained permanent competitive status when her position was jurisdictionally reclassified from the noncompetitive class to the competitive class. Supreme Court ruled that Burns was entitled to continue in her position as a computer aide without examination, despite the jurisdictional reclassification of the position to competitive. The Appellate Division agreed.
The Appellate Division rejected the Schenectady Civil Service Commission’s contention that Burns had to qualify by competitive examination to attain permanent competitive status in the reclassified position. Citing Matter of Bell v County of Warren, 111 AD2d 428, the court said that “Civil service employees, in the noncompetitive class, whose positions are subsequently reclassified into the competitive class may continue in their positions without examination.”*
According to the ruling, the record demonstrated that despite reclassification, Burns' job and responsibilities remained unchanged during her four years in the position.**
Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that Burns was entitled to maintain her employment without successfully completing a civil service examination, even though the position has been jurisdictionally reclassified from noncompetitive class to competitive class.
* See, also, Fornara v Schroeder, 261 NY 363. In Fornara the court said that an individual lawfully appointed to a position that is jurisdictionally reclassified to the competitive class is continued in the competitive class position without further examination.
** Jurisdictional classification and jurisdictional reclassification involve determinations placing positions in the classified service in the competitive, exempt, noncompetitive or labor classes [Section 2.10, Civil Service Law]. In contrast, position classification involves the evaluation of the duties and responsibilities of a position and placing it in a group of positions with a common and descriptive title [Section 2.11, Civil Service Law]. Positions in the unclassified service, consisting essentially of elected officials, the members and staffs of legislative bodies, department heads and educators are described in Section 35 of the Civil Service Law
Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Mennillo, 38 A.D.3d 1113
Suzanne Burns was permanently appointed to the noncompetitive position of computer aide by the City of Schenectady in 2000. About four years later the Schenectady County Civil Service Commission jurisdictionally reclassified the position into the competitive class. The Commission then told Burns that she would be required to qualify by competitive examination in order to continue in the jurisdictionally reclassified position.
Burns sued, contending that she attained permanent competitive status when her position was jurisdictionally reclassified from the noncompetitive class to the competitive class. Supreme Court ruled that Burns was entitled to continue in her position as a computer aide without examination, despite the jurisdictional reclassification of the position to competitive. The Appellate Division agreed.
The Appellate Division rejected the Schenectady Civil Service Commission’s contention that Burns had to qualify by competitive examination to attain permanent competitive status in the reclassified position. Citing Matter of Bell v County of Warren, 111 AD2d 428, the court said that “Civil service employees, in the noncompetitive class, whose positions are subsequently reclassified into the competitive class may continue in their positions without examination.”*
According to the ruling, the record demonstrated that despite reclassification, Burns' job and responsibilities remained unchanged during her four years in the position.**
Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that Burns was entitled to maintain her employment without successfully completing a civil service examination, even though the position has been jurisdictionally reclassified from noncompetitive class to competitive class.
* See, also, Fornara v Schroeder, 261 NY 363. In Fornara the court said that an individual lawfully appointed to a position that is jurisdictionally reclassified to the competitive class is continued in the competitive class position without further examination.
** Jurisdictional classification and jurisdictional reclassification involve determinations placing positions in the classified service in the competitive, exempt, noncompetitive or labor classes [Section 2.10, Civil Service Law]. In contrast, position classification involves the evaluation of the duties and responsibilities of a position and placing it in a group of positions with a common and descriptive title [Section 2.11, Civil Service Law]. Positions in the unclassified service, consisting essentially of elected officials, the members and staffs of legislative bodies, department heads and educators are described in Section 35 of the Civil Service Law
Arbitrator ordered employer to pay a portion of the employee’s costs in defending himself against disciplinary charges characterized as frivolous
Arbitrator ordered employer to pay a portion of the employee’s costs in defending himself against disciplinary charges characterized as frivolous
Board of Education of Florida Union Free School District v DePace, et al.,
301 A.D.2d 521; appeal denied, 99 NY2d 511
The Board of Education of Florida Union Free School District served disciplinary charges on Ronald DePace pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law.
The §3020-a disciplinary hearing officer, after a hearing, dismissed 13 of the 14 charges filed against DePace as frivolous and ordered the school district to pay 80% of the costs incurred by DePace and the New York State Department of Education in connection with the hearing.
Florida an appeal pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking a court order modifying the hearing officers determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition insofar as it purportedly was asserted against the New York State Department of Education and denied the petition insofar as asserted against Ronald DePace, confirmed the Hearing Officer's determination.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination “with one bill of costs.”
The court said that “ss the Supreme Court correctly determined, the amended petition insofar as it purportedly was asserted against the New York State Department of Education was a nullity because [the school district] failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 401.
Holding that the Hearing Officer's determination that the school district should pay 80% of the costs incurred by Ronald DePace had a rational basis and was supported by the evidence in the record, the Appellate Division dismissed Florida UFSD’s appeal.
Randall Comments: Another case involving a court awarding attorney fees to the employee in the context of disciplinary action is Perez v Department of Labor, 244 AD2d 844.
Athough Hilton Perez was found guilty of misconduct and terminated from his position following a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law, Supreme Court annulled the determination, finding that was no evidence that the hearing officer who presided over Perez’s disciplinary hearing had been so designated in writing by the appointing authority as mandated in §75.2 of the Civil Service Law.
The court directed the department to reinstate Perez to his former position with back salary and benefits. Perez was also awarded legal fees and expenses totaling $19,907.84, $9275 of which reflected his legal expenses attributable to the Section 75 disciplinary action.*
The Department of Labor appealed. However, the Appellate Division rejected the Department’s claim that its failure to designate the disciplinary hearing officer in writing was “a mere technicality” as Perez’s termination was otherwise “substantially justified.”
The Appellate Division also affirmed the lower court’s award of attorney fees and expenses. In addition, the Appellate Division ruled that Perez was entitled to the fees and expenses incurred in connection with the department’s appeal to the Appellate Division challenging the underlying Supreme Court’s decision. It returned the case to Supreme Court for further action concerning this aspect of the case.
* Section 8601 (a) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules provides, in relevant part, that [A] court shall award to a prevailing party ... fees and other expenses incurred by such party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the court finds that the position of the state was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
Board of Education of Florida Union Free School District v DePace, et al.,
301 A.D.2d 521; appeal denied, 99 NY2d 511
The Board of Education of Florida Union Free School District served disciplinary charges on Ronald DePace pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law.
The §3020-a disciplinary hearing officer, after a hearing, dismissed 13 of the 14 charges filed against DePace as frivolous and ordered the school district to pay 80% of the costs incurred by DePace and the New York State Department of Education in connection with the hearing.
Florida an appeal pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking a court order modifying the hearing officers determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition insofar as it purportedly was asserted against the New York State Department of Education and denied the petition insofar as asserted against Ronald DePace, confirmed the Hearing Officer's determination.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination “with one bill of costs.”
The court said that “ss the Supreme Court correctly determined, the amended petition insofar as it purportedly was asserted against the New York State Department of Education was a nullity because [the school district] failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 401.
Holding that the Hearing Officer's determination that the school district should pay 80% of the costs incurred by Ronald DePace had a rational basis and was supported by the evidence in the record, the Appellate Division dismissed Florida UFSD’s appeal.
Randall Comments: Another case involving a court awarding attorney fees to the employee in the context of disciplinary action is Perez v Department of Labor, 244 AD2d 844.
Athough Hilton Perez was found guilty of misconduct and terminated from his position following a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law, Supreme Court annulled the determination, finding that was no evidence that the hearing officer who presided over Perez’s disciplinary hearing had been so designated in writing by the appointing authority as mandated in §75.2 of the Civil Service Law.
The court directed the department to reinstate Perez to his former position with back salary and benefits. Perez was also awarded legal fees and expenses totaling $19,907.84, $9275 of which reflected his legal expenses attributable to the Section 75 disciplinary action.*
The Department of Labor appealed. However, the Appellate Division rejected the Department’s claim that its failure to designate the disciplinary hearing officer in writing was “a mere technicality” as Perez’s termination was otherwise “substantially justified.”
The Appellate Division also affirmed the lower court’s award of attorney fees and expenses. In addition, the Appellate Division ruled that Perez was entitled to the fees and expenses incurred in connection with the department’s appeal to the Appellate Division challenging the underlying Supreme Court’s decision. It returned the case to Supreme Court for further action concerning this aspect of the case.
* Section 8601 (a) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules provides, in relevant part, that [A] court shall award to a prevailing party ... fees and other expenses incurred by such party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the court finds that the position of the state was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
July 12, 2010
A broad arbitration clause still must satisfy the “reasonable relationship test” for a court to grant a petition to compel arbitration
A broad arbitration clause still must satisfy the “reasonable relationship test” for a court to grant a petition to compel arbitration
Matter of Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters Local 921 v Village of Johnson City, Proceedings I and II, 2010 NY Slip Op 06029 [Appeals were consolidated by order of the Court]
In response to the Village’s initiating disciplinary action against certain members of Local 921, the Local filed a grievance demanding arbitration of an alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement based on the Village’s unilateral selection of a hearing officer to preside over the disciplinary hearings.
On June 19, 2009 State Supreme Court Judge Ferris D. Lebous entered an order that, among other things, granted the Unions application to compel arbitration with respect its contract grievance concerning the selection of hearing officers [Proceeding No. 1].* On August 18, 2009, Judge Lebous entered an order denying the Village’s application for a permanent stay of arbitration [Proceeding No. 2], ruling that the issue was “referable to arbitration. The Village appealed both rulings.
The Appellate Division said “Whether a grievance may be arbitrated is decided by determining whether any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition bars arbitration of the dispute at issue and, if not, whether the parties agreed to arbitrate it.”
Citing Civil Service Law §75.2, the court said that the Village is statutorily vested with the power to designate a hearing officer in disciplinary proceedings.** However, this statutory power may be modified or superseded through collective bargaining or negotiation and a public employer may agree to submit disciplinary procedures to arbitration.
The Village argued that modification of such a statutory power must be voluntarily undertaken as the result of "a conscious choice" and that there was no such agreement.
The Appellate Division said that the CBA provides for arbitration of any dispute "involving the interpretation or application of any provisions of [the CBA]," a provision that the court had earlier described as broad. It then noted that "the court is limited to determin[ing] whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA."
In this instance the Appellate Division concluded that no such reasonable relationship existed between the CBA and the parties' dispute regarding the selection of a hearing officer. The Appellate Division explained that “The CBA does not mention the selection of disciplinary hearing officers; its sole reference to disciplinary proceedings is a requirement that any reprimand be conducted privately, in a manner to avoid embarrassment.”
In response to the Local’s assertion that that the CBA reflects the parties agreement to "follow [the Public Employment Relations Board's] rules of procedure for dispute resolution," which, in the Local’s view, "precluded the Village from unilaterally selecting a hearing officer."
However, said the court, the Local’s analysis would require the arbitrator to engage in contractual interpretation not only of the CBA, but also PERB's rules while the CBA despite the fact that the CBA limits the arbitrator's authority to disputes "involving the interpretation and application of any provisions of this agreement.”
In addition, the Appellate Division commented that the CBA's reference to the Public Employment Relations Board's rules of procedure is not pertinent as its applicability is expressly limited to disputes "involving the interpretation or application of any provisions of this agreement."
Reversing both Supreme Court’s rulings, the court said that “Even a broad arbitration clause is not unlimited in its scope; to satisfy the reasonable relationship test, a contractual interpretation must be 'at least colorable …. ' As no colorable interpretation of the CBA brings the selection of a disciplinary hearing officer within its general scope, we cannot conclude that the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute on this subject.”
The practical effect of the ruling: The Appellate Division vacated the decision granting Local’s petition regarding the selection of a hearing officer [Proceeding No. 1} and granted the Village’s application to stay arbitration [Proceeding No. 2].
* The order enjoining further disciplinary proceedings and compelled arbitration of the grievance.
** Civil Service Law §76.4 provides that such statutory power may be modified or superseded through collective bargaining or negotiation whereby “such sections may be supplemented, modified or replaced by agreements negotiated between the State and an employee organization pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Service Law.” Civil Service Law §75.2 has been relied upon for similar authority with respect to political subdivisions of the State while Education Law §3020-a provides the authority for disciplinary charges filed against an educator in the unclassified service to be considered by an arbitrator or arbitration panel and subject to the provisions of Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06029.htm
Matter of Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters Local 921 v Village of Johnson City, Proceedings I and II, 2010 NY Slip Op 06029 [Appeals were consolidated by order of the Court]
In response to the Village’s initiating disciplinary action against certain members of Local 921, the Local filed a grievance demanding arbitration of an alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement based on the Village’s unilateral selection of a hearing officer to preside over the disciplinary hearings.
On June 19, 2009 State Supreme Court Judge Ferris D. Lebous entered an order that, among other things, granted the Unions application to compel arbitration with respect its contract grievance concerning the selection of hearing officers [Proceeding No. 1].* On August 18, 2009, Judge Lebous entered an order denying the Village’s application for a permanent stay of arbitration [Proceeding No. 2], ruling that the issue was “referable to arbitration. The Village appealed both rulings.
The Appellate Division said “Whether a grievance may be arbitrated is decided by determining whether any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition bars arbitration of the dispute at issue and, if not, whether the parties agreed to arbitrate it.”
Citing Civil Service Law §75.2, the court said that the Village is statutorily vested with the power to designate a hearing officer in disciplinary proceedings.** However, this statutory power may be modified or superseded through collective bargaining or negotiation and a public employer may agree to submit disciplinary procedures to arbitration.
The Village argued that modification of such a statutory power must be voluntarily undertaken as the result of "a conscious choice" and that there was no such agreement.
The Appellate Division said that the CBA provides for arbitration of any dispute "involving the interpretation or application of any provisions of [the CBA]," a provision that the court had earlier described as broad. It then noted that "the court is limited to determin[ing] whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA."
In this instance the Appellate Division concluded that no such reasonable relationship existed between the CBA and the parties' dispute regarding the selection of a hearing officer. The Appellate Division explained that “The CBA does not mention the selection of disciplinary hearing officers; its sole reference to disciplinary proceedings is a requirement that any reprimand be conducted privately, in a manner to avoid embarrassment.”
In response to the Local’s assertion that that the CBA reflects the parties agreement to "follow [the Public Employment Relations Board's] rules of procedure for dispute resolution," which, in the Local’s view, "precluded the Village from unilaterally selecting a hearing officer."
However, said the court, the Local’s analysis would require the arbitrator to engage in contractual interpretation not only of the CBA, but also PERB's rules while the CBA despite the fact that the CBA limits the arbitrator's authority to disputes "involving the interpretation and application of any provisions of this agreement.”
In addition, the Appellate Division commented that the CBA's reference to the Public Employment Relations Board's rules of procedure is not pertinent as its applicability is expressly limited to disputes "involving the interpretation or application of any provisions of this agreement."
Reversing both Supreme Court’s rulings, the court said that “Even a broad arbitration clause is not unlimited in its scope; to satisfy the reasonable relationship test, a contractual interpretation must be 'at least colorable …. ' As no colorable interpretation of the CBA brings the selection of a disciplinary hearing officer within its general scope, we cannot conclude that the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute on this subject.”
The practical effect of the ruling: The Appellate Division vacated the decision granting Local’s petition regarding the selection of a hearing officer [Proceeding No. 1} and granted the Village’s application to stay arbitration [Proceeding No. 2].
* The order enjoining further disciplinary proceedings and compelled arbitration of the grievance.
** Civil Service Law §76.4 provides that such statutory power may be modified or superseded through collective bargaining or negotiation whereby “such sections may be supplemented, modified or replaced by agreements negotiated between the State and an employee organization pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Service Law.” Civil Service Law §75.2 has been relied upon for similar authority with respect to political subdivisions of the State while Education Law §3020-a provides the authority for disciplinary charges filed against an educator in the unclassified service to be considered by an arbitrator or arbitration panel and subject to the provisions of Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06029.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CAUTION
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press.
Email: n467fl@gmail.com