Tenure by estoppel

Tenure by estoppel
Matter of Andrews v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2010 NY Slip Op 32963(U), October 15, 2010, Supreme Court, New York County. Judge Joan A. Madden [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Dana Andrews sought a court order declaring that she had attained tenure by estoppel as a result of her being continued in service after the end of her probationary period and direct the New York City Board of Education to reinstate her to her former position with back salary.*

Although a newly appointed teacher is required to serve a three-year probationary period, because Andrews was entitled to two years of so-called “Jarema credit toward the completion of her probationary period.** Accordingly, Andrews’ probationary period was to end August 30, 2008.

When Andrews was advised that she would not be given tenure at the end of her probationary period, she requested, and was granted, “another chance to improve and perform satisfactorily,” and Andrews signed an agreement extending her probationary period for one year, i.e., through August 30, 2009. The agreement provided that Andrews would either be granted tenure, if she satisfactorily completed the additional year of probation, or she could be terminated on or before that date.

On or about June 18, 2009 Andrews was sent a letter advising her that her overall rating as a probationary teacher was “unsatisfactory.”

On September 8, 2009, the first day of the 2009-2010 school year, Andrews reported for duty. Her principal advised her that she should not be there because she had been terminated. Andrews replied that she had “never received written notice of her termination and left the school, only to return later that day, indicating that her union representative had told her that she should remain at the school for that day.

Andrews’ union representatives subsequently met with school officials. The union's representatives asserted that Andrews’ principal had stated that she had "messed up" by failing to provide Andrews with timely written notice that she was to be discontinued.

The Board of Education, contending that Andrews had not attained tenure by estoppel, withdrew its argument that she was not entitled to back pay, conceding that she had not been be provided with a written notice of her discontinuance more than 60 days before her probationary period expired.

Noting that a teacher can acquire tenure either through appointment or by acquiescence and estoppel. Typically tenure by estoppel is acquired when a school board “accepts the continued services of a teacher or administrator, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny tenure prior to the expiration of the teacher’s probationary term.”

An individual claiming tenure by estoppel has the burden of demonstrating that his or her “post-probationary” services were performed with the knowledge and consent of the responsible board of education. However, said Judge Madden, “The mere failure to provide a teacher with the required amount of notice of an intention not to recommend tenure does not confer tenure," citing Matter of Brunecz v City of Dunkirk Bd. of Educ., 23 AD3d 1126.

Noting that the Board of Education terminated Andrews on or about September 11, 2009, the court said that in Educ. of Cohoes City School Dist., 59 AD2d at 807, the Appellate Division held that a teacher who taught for a few days after his probationary period ended had not attain tenure by estoppel “where prompt action was taken to discharge the teacher as soon as his presence was discovered.”***

Accordingly, Judge Madden dismissed Andrews’ petition seeking a judgment that she had attained tenure by estoppel but commented that her request for alternative relief – back pay for failure to provide the statutory notice that she was not to be given tenure at the end of her probationary period -- was not in dispute and would be provided by the Board of Education.

* In the alternative, she contended that she was entitled to 60 days of back pay because she was not given the requisite pre-termination notice as to he failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period.

** Section 2509.1(a) [the "Jarema Act"] provides that the statutory three-year probationary period for teachers may be reduced by up to two years if the teacher rendered service as a "regular substitute" for a full term or more prior to the teacher's probationary appointment by the school district. In determining the duration of the probationary period, if a teacher is absent during his or her probationary period, the district may extended the probationary period for a period of time equal to the absence.

*** Similarly, as the Appellate Division held in Mendez v Valenti, 101 AD2d 612, as long as the termination of a probationer [in the classified service] is effected within a reasonable time, such as set to coincide with the end of the next payroll period, the courts will not deem the probationer to have obtained tenure by estoppel because of his or her continuation on the payroll following the last day of his or her probationary period. Stated another way, the appointing authority has until the last day of the individual's probationary period to decide whether to retain the employee, extend the employee's probationary period, or to terminate the employee from his or her position. Although the effective date of the employee's removal from the payroll may occur after this date, the required notice of the termination must be delivered to the employee before close of business on the last day of his or her probationary period.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/pdfs/2010/2010_32963.pdf
NYPPL

Prohibited subjects of arbitration

Prohibited subjects of arbitration
Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 NY3d 513
[Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 26 AD3d 843, modified.]

Readers are undoubtedly familiar with the concept that there are “prohibited subjects of negotiations” within the meaning of the Taylor Law. In Chautauqua, the courts considered a corollary to this prohibition: prohibited subjects of arbitration.

Although the Taylor mandates that a public employer to bargain with employee organizations and to enter written agreements concerning the terms and conditions of employment and may agree to submit disputes to binding arbitration, this is permitted only in "the absence of 'plain and clear' prohibitions in statute or controlling decision[al] law, or restrictive public policy" (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268).

In determining if a dispute is arbitrable, a court applies a two-part test:

1. Is there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance?

If the court finds that there is no such prohibition, it must examine the collective bargaining agreement and then apply the second test:

2. Did the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute?

If the court finds that the parties did not agree to submit the matter to arbitration, an arbitrator cannot act.

In other words, a court “must stay arbitration where it can conclude, upon examining the parties' contract and the relevant statute, "that the granting of any relief would violate public policy."

In Chautauqua, the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) demanded arbitration of grievances concerning layoffs and rights of displacement contained in Section 14.05 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

Section 14.05(a) provided as follows:

(a) For layoff purposes, an employee's seniority shall determine the order to be followed. In a department, the employee with the least seniority shall be the first to be laid off until the total number of employees required to decrease forces shall be reached. When all displacement possibilities are exhausted within the department, the employee shall have the right to displace in other departments.

In contrast, Civil Service Law Section 80, which addresses layoff affecting employees in the competitive class, provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Subdivision (1). Where, because of economy, consolidation or abolition of functions, curtailment of activities or otherwise, positions in the competitive class are abolished or reduced in rank or salary grade, suspension or demotion, as the case may be, among incumbents holding the same or similar positions shall be made in the inverse order of original appointment on a permanent basis in the classified service in the service of the governmental jurisdiction in which such abolition or reduction of positions occurs.

Subdivision (4). Upon the abolition or reduction of positions in the service of a civil division, suspension or demotion shall be made from among employees holding the same or similar positions in the entire department or agency within which such abolition or reduction of positions occurs.

The County, based on the advice provided by the New York State Department of Civil Service, said that there was a conflict between section 14.05 of the CBA and Civil Service Law Section 80 with respect to layoff and refused to implement Section 14.05 of the CBA.*

CSEA demanded arbitration, contending that County violated Section 14.05 of the CBA by refusing to (1) lay off “the employees with the least seniority within a department until the total number of employees required to decrease forces in that Department was reached" and (2) allow "employees to displace employees in other departments after they exhausted displacement rights in their own departments."

Ultimately the County filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75 proceeding seeking a permanent stay of arbitration as to all issues; CSEA opposed the petition and cross-moved to compel arbitration.

Supreme Court agreed with the County that a conflict existed between Civil Service Law and the CBA. Citing Matter of City of Plattsburgh (Local 788 & N.Y. Council 66, Am. Fedn. of State, County & Mun. Empls., AFL-CIO), 108 AD2d 1045, the court ruled that such a conflict was for a court, not an arbitrator, to resolve.** It granted the County's petition, in part, staying arbitration to the extent that CSEA's demands concerned claims or rights on behalf of employees who were in the Competitive Classification under the Civil Service Law. The court, however, concluded that because section 80(4) did not apply to noncompetitive or labor class employees, arbitration was permissible as to them and granted CSEA's cross motion to that extent.***

On an appeal to the Appellate Division unanimously reversed and granted CSEA's cross motion to compel arbitration in its entirety (See 26 AD3d 843) on the rationale that the perceived conflict was "merely theoretical,” concluding that the entire dispute was arbitrable because the statute did not contain " 'clear exclusionary language' " that precluded arbitration.

The Court of Appeals disagreed and modified the Appellate Division’s determination.

The high court said that it agreed with the County’s position that Section 80 first requires municipalities to decide which titles are essential and then protects the senior employees in such titles. In contrast, the County contended that CBA constituted “an impermissible intrusion on this statutory scheme” by protecting specific persons, rather than necessary positions, regardless of the municipality's operational needs or the community's service needs." As it stated in Honeoye Falls-Lima, 49 NY2d at 733, an appointing authority may not surrender through collective bargaining "a responsibility vested in the [appointing authority].” ****

Finding that under the CBA the County would retain no power to decide which positions to eliminate while Section 80(1) clearly indicates “that a public employer has a nondelegable discretion to determine—for reasons of economy, among others—what its staffing and budgetary needs are in order to effectively deliver uninterrupted services to the public.” Once such an informed decision is made, Section 80(1) controls with respect to respect the seniority rights of its employees.

In the words of the Court of Appeals: “Succinctly put, under the CBA, seniority controls the abolition of positions; under the statute, seniority controls only after the employer decides which positions will be affected. This conflict is plainly irreconcilable.”

As to displacement rights, the court said that the nonarbitrability of this issue is less clear. Although Civil Service Law Section 80(4) provides that "[u]pon the abolition or reduction of positions . . . , suspension or demotion shall be made from among employees holding the same or similar positions in the entire department or agency within which such abolition or reduction of positions occurs," there is no explicit language in this subdivision that can be read to prohibit, in an absolute sense, a public employer from agreeing to permit employees to "bump" less senior employees in another department or division within the same layoff unit.

The court ruled that as public policy precludes arbitration of CSEA's primary grievance as to the layoff of certain employees, the County's petition to stay arbitration is granted. However, as there is no clear public policy precluding arbitration of CSEA's secondary grievance concerning displacement rights, CSEA's cross motion to compel arbitration was granted to that extent.

* The Department of Civil Service had advised the County that a collective bargaining agreement "may not alter the layoff units prescribed by Section 80 (4).”

** In Plattsburgh the collective bargaining agreement provided that in determining seniority in the event of demotions in connection with a layoff the "date hired" was to be used. Section 80 of the Civil Service Law provides that the date of "permanent appointment" controls. The Union sought to arbitrate the alleged contract violation. The City resisted and won an order prohibiting arbitration. The Appellate Division held that Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away. Accordingly, it was required to follow the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Service Law notwithstanding any Taylor Agreement provision to the contrary.

*** Section 80-a applies to suspension or demotion upon the abolition or reduction of non-competitive class positions in the state service.

**** In Honeoye the issue was the maintenance of adequate classroom standards.
NYPPL

Court permits tape-recorded statements provided by informants to be admitted into evidence in an administrative disciplinary hearing

Court permits tape-recorded statements provided by informants to be admitted into evidence in an administrative disciplinary hearing
Matter of Safir, 261 AD2d 153

A police officer was dismissed from his position after he was found guilty of conspiring with a “chop shop owner” to have at least one car stolen on his behalf. The evidence presented against the officer consisted of the testimony of the investigating officers and a tape recording containing statements by three informants.

The police officer challenged his termination, contending that the police commissioner’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that the record made during the disciplinary proceeding contained substantial evidence of the officer's guilt of the charges filed against him.

The court said that the tape-recorded statements, although hearsay, were properly received as part of the evidence against the officer. The decision noted that the reliability of the informants’ statements was corroborated by their internal consistency, by facts disclosed in the investigation and, in part, by the officer’s own testimony.
NYPPL