Disciplinary action follows failure to report for medical exam

Disciplinary action follows failure to report for medical exam
Santiago v Koehler, 546 NYS2d 625

An appointment was schedule for an employee to be evaluated by the employer's Health Management Division. This apparently was one of a series of such appointments. Earlier appointments that had been scheduled for the employee but he failed to appear for the examination. When the Santiago failed to appear for this, the most recent scheduled appointment, he was served with disciplinary charges alleging misconduct based on his failure to report for the medical examination as scheduled.

Found guilty, Santiago was told that he had a choice as to the penalty to be imposed. He could elect either a five-day suspension without pay or, in the alternative, agree to pay a fine of 300 dollars. Santiago elected the five-day suspension without pay rather than the $300 fine. He then sued to vacate the disciplinary action, asking the court to rescind the penalty he had elected.

The Appellate Division, 1st Department, decided that the disciplinary determination was supported by substantial evidence. This evidence apparently included admissions by Santiago concerning the event. It then said that “the penalty of five days suspension, chosen by [Santiago] from the options adopted by the Commissioner, is not excessive in relation to the repeated infractions here involved.”

Enlarging the probationary period

Enlarging the probationary period
Caruso v Ward, 546 NYS2d 853

The New York City Police Department decided to change the initial probationary period for police officers from eighteen months to two years. The Union challenged the decision and asked the Courts to annul the change.

The Appellate Division sustained the Department’s changing the term of the probationary period for newly appointed police officers, citing a number of reasons for its ruling.

The Court said that the Union:

(1) had failed to show that it had a clear legal right to the relief it sought [reversion to the 18 month probationary period] and

(2) it did not present any evidence of bad faith, illegality or arbitrary action by the Department in extending the maximum period of probation for new appointees to the force.

The Appellate Division then said that “the decision to enlarge the probationary period was rationally related to the goal of more thorough evaluation of [a] new officers’ fitness for duty” and denied the union’s appeal.

Employee’s “informal” comment that he or she “may need FMLA leave” may not be sufficient to trigger FMLA protections

Employee’s “informal” comment that he or she “may need FMLA leave” may not be sufficient to trigger FMLA protections
Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/
Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.

Upon learning that his wife was pregnancy and due in early 2008, Chad Wilson told his supervisor that he might need to take leave to care for his newborn if his mother-in-law was unavailable. Wilson was subsequently terminated for dismissing his supervisor's concerns about Wilson’s failure to follow the chain of command regarding a pay issue.

Wilson sued alleging that his termination was in retaliation for exercising FMLA rights. He argued that he engaged in FMLA-protected activity by requesting leave to care for his child. The FMLA provides that an employee must "provide at least verbal notice sufficient to make the employer aware that the employee needs FMLA-qualifying leave, and the anticipated timing and duration of the leave" [29 CFR 825.302(c)].

The Fifth Circuit found that Wilson failed to provide adequate notice of the need for FMLA leave. Wilson, the Court observed, " never informed Noble that he intended to take leave, only that he "might" need to take leave and that there was a "possibility" that he would need to take leave." The Court held that these comments were insufficient to make his employer aware that he needed FMLA-qualifying leave.

The Court also found that Wilson failed to notify his employer of the "anticipated timing and duration" of any leave. Wilson conceded that he did not get into any specifics as to who, what, when, or where of the leave. Telling his supervisor that he "might" need to take leave "early in the year after the baby was here" failed to inform the employer of the anticipated timing and duration of the leave, the Court held.

The Court held that Wilson failed to establish that his removal was in retaliation for requesting FMLA leave.

Wilson v. Noble Drilling Service, Inc., 10-20129 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2010)

Mr. Bosland Comments: While employees need not invoke the FMLA by name when requesting leave, they must provide their employer with sufficient information to alert the employer that FMLA leave may be needed.

Telling an employer that you "might" or "possibly" may need FMLA leave, even for an FMLA-qualifying reason, is not sufficient. To be a valid request, courts also want more specificity in terms of the timing and duration of the leave. Employees do not invoke the protections of the FMLA by telling your employer that you may need leave at unknown time in the future.

To invoke the FMLA, employees need to provide more specifics, not less, when requesting leave.

Added to NYPPL’s sidebar of Lawblogs

Added to NYPPL’s sidebar of Lawblogs

New York City Employment Lawyer has been added to NYPPL's listing of "Links to Other Useful Web Pages".

Focusing on “Employment Law for Attorneys, Employees, and the General Public” and authored by Josh Bernstein, Esq., the Internet address of this LawBlog is: http://jbernsteinpc.com/blog/

Mr. Bernstein's recent posts include the following:

Employee Tip of the Week: Take Your Personal Property With You

Toyota Whistleblower Slammed With $2.6 Million Dollar Arbitration Verdict For Disclosing Confidential Documents

Employee Tip of the Week: Be Direct, and Be Clear

Employee Tip of the Week: Make a Record

The New York City Human Rights Law’s Canon of Liberal Construction

Duties of the position assigned to employees in a different negotiating unit following the abolishment of the position

Duties of the position assigned to employees in a different negotiating unit following the abolishment of the position
CSEA Orange County Local 836 v PERB, 273 A.D.2d 626

The Local 836 case concerns an employee organization’s right to negotiate the impact of a legislative body’s eliminating a certain position and the duties previously performed by incumbent of the abolished position are to be performed by an employee in another collective bargaining unit.

On December 31, 1994, the Newburgh City Council eliminated positions of animal control officer for budgetary reasons. These positions were in the negotiating unit represented by CSEA Orange County Local 836. The City reassigned the duties being performed by the former incumbents of the abolished positions to uniformed City police officers -- who were in a different collective bargaining unit.

Local 836 filed charges alleging that the City committed an improper employer practice when it assigned the duties previously performed by the animal control officers to non-unit police officers. Ultimately, PERB said that the transfer of the work from the animal control officers to police officers necessarily resulted in a significant change in qualifications and that the propriety of the transfer was therefore to be determined under the balancing test set out in its ruling in Matter of the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, 18 PERB 3083.

After applying the Niagara test, PERB held that when weighed against a mere loss of unit work, Newburgh’s managerial concerns clearly prevail and thus the transfer of duties was not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Accordingly, Newburgh was not required to negotiate its decision to transfer “unit work” and PERB dismissed the charge. The Appellate Division affirmed PERB’s determination.

The court said that because of the special employment qualifications required of, and possessed by, police officers and firefighters, the substitution of civilian employees for uniformed officers would of itself constitute a substantial change in job qualifications. It necessarily follows that the converse is true and that a substitution of police officers for civilian employees will also involve the requisite significant change.

The Appellate Division ruled that PERB rationally concluded that the transfer of job functions from civilian to uniformed employees effected a significant change in job qualifications without reference to the actual duties performed by the two classes of employees.

As to the balancing test applied by PERB, the court agreed with view expressed by PERB that because the animal control officer positions had been previously eliminated as the result of the City’s legislative action, the loss of those jobs was not a factor that entered into the test.

Accordingly, the loss of the jobs in the unit represented by Local 836 was not a consequence that flowed from the City’s reassignment of the non-emergency animal control duties to the police, it is the action that precipitated the assignment of unit work to non-unit employees.

The court’s conclusion: The loss of jobs under such circumstances cannot be a part of the balancing test to determine whether the City’ s action in transferring the unit work to nonunit employees violated the [Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act (Civil Service Law Article 14) because it did not occur as a result of the transfer of unit duties and thus the impact of this change was not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

What is the balancing test scenario used in situations involving the type unilateral transfer of unit work referred to in the Newburgh case?

First there must a determination as to whether the work been performed by unit employees exclusively and, second, a determination as to whether the reassigned tasks substantially similar to those previously performed by unit employees.

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, there has been a violation of Article 14 unless the qualifications for the job have been changed significantly.

If there is no such change in the qualifications for the position, the loss of unit work to the group is sufficient a detriment to support a finding of a violation.

If, however, there has been a significant change in the job qualifications and the change has not been mandated by the appropriate legislative body, then a balancing test is used and the respective interests of the public employer and the unit employees, both individually and collectively, must be weighed against each other.

Unemployment insurance and Section 75 disciplinary finding

Unemployment insurance and Section 75 disciplinary finding
Dimps v NYC Human Resources Administration, 274 A.D.2d 625

Dimps had been found guilty of 12 of 20 specifications of misconduct by an administrative law judge [ALJ] following a disciplinary hearing pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.

The ALJ recommended that Dimps be dismissed and HRA adopted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendation regarding the penalty to be imposed. The New York City Civil Service Commission affirmed HRA’s Section 75 determination and the penalty imposed.

Dimps then applied for unemployment insurance benefits, which were denied on the ground that her employment was terminated due to her misconduct. A hearing was scheduled and an Unemployment Insurance Administrative Law Judge allowed Dimps to explain nine of the specifications on which she was found guilty.

HRA objected, contending that the doctrine of collateral estoppel should apply to the findings of fact made at the disciplinary hearing with respect to Dimps’ appeal of her disqualification for unemployment benefits.

Ultimately the ALJ agreed with HRA’s argument and did not consider Dimps’ explanation in making his determination. The ALJ ruled that Dimps was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because she had been terminated for misconduct.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ruled that Shirley Dimps was disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits because she had been terminated for misconduct. Dimps appealed the Board’s decision to the Appellate Division.

Was the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel appropriate in Dimps’ case before the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board? The Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled that it was and dismissed Dimps’ appeal.

In the words of the Appellate Division:

... inasmuch as claimant was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of misconduct at the disciplinary hearing, the ALJ at the unemployment insurance hearing properly accorded collateral estoppel effect to the ensuing factual findings.

The court noted that at the disciplinary hearing, Dimps was represented by counsel, testified on her own behalf, cross-examined the employer’s witnesses and had the opportunity to present and examine relevant evidence.

As an alternative, Dimps argued that the Unemployment Insurance Board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division said that it found to the contrary and that there was substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that Dimps committed disqualifying misconduct, i.e., she continuously refused to abide by reasonable directives of her supervisor....

All necessary parties -- i.e. parties that could be affected by the decision -- must be named in an appeal to the Commissioner of Education

All necessary parties -- i.e. parties that could be affected by the decision -- must be named in an appeal to the Commissioner of Education
Appeal of Robert W. Fife, Decisions of the Commissioner of Eduction 15,533

Robert W. Fife held a tenured appointment with the Delaware Valley Central School District. Fife’s tenure area: physical education and health. In 1999 Delaware merged with the Jeffersonville-Youngsville and Narrowsburg School Districts to form the Sullivan West Central School District.

As a result of the merger, a .5 full-time equivalent (“FTE”) position in the physical education tenure area and a .5 FTE position in the health tenure area were eliminated. Fife was told that as he was least senior person in those tenure areas, he would be terminated effective June 30, 2005, and that his name would be placed on a preferred eligible list.

Following this, Fife was appointed to a .4 FTE physical education position.

Fife challenged the district’s determination regarding his seniority, contending that while he mathematically devoted less than 40% of his total time providing health instruction during five of his ten years of employment, this was because he taught more classes than the number of periods that was usual and customary. He also claimed that the percentage of his time spent providing health instruction would increase if the time he spent teaching driver education were viewed as a co-curricular activity.

The Commissioner dismissed Fife’s appeal because of a procedural defect – Fife’s failure to “join” a necessary party in his appeal.* A necessary party is one whose rights would be adversely affected by a determination of an appeal in favor of an appellant and must be joined as such.

Fife argued that he had no way of knowing the party or parties who would be adversely affected by a decision in his favor. However, there was only one other teacher employed by the District who held tenure in the area of health. Since Fife’s request for reinstatement, if successful, could affect the employment status of that teacher, the Commissioner ruled that the other teacher should have been joined as a necessary party to Fife’s appeal.

Notwithstanding this technical defect, the Commissioner commented that Fife’s appeal would have been dismissed on the merits had it not been dismissed on procedural grounds.

The Commissioner explained that seniority means length of service in a designated tenure area, rather than length of service in the district. Further, such service need not have been consecutive but “shall during each term for which seniority credit is sought, have constituted a substantial portion of the time of the professional educator.”

As used in Part 30 of the Commissioner’s regulations, the phrase “substantial portion” means 40 percent or more of the total time spent by a professional educator in the performance of his duties, exclusive of time spent in preparation, monitoring or in co-curricular activities (8 NYCRR §30.1[g]).

As Fife conceded that he devoted less than 40 percent of his total time providing health instruction during five of his ten years of employment he did not meet this standard.

Further, said the Commissioner, although Fife contended that failed to meet the “40 percent” because he taught more classes than the number of periods that was usual and customary, he did not indicated any legal basis for earning seniority credit in health during the years in which health instruction did not constitute a substantial portion of his time.

As to Fife’s attempt to have his duties teaching driver education as an assigned period during his regular work schedule, the Commissioner ruled that this does not support his contention that this instruction should be viewed as a co-curricular activity.

The Commissioner said that the District’s determination the Fife had less seniority than the teacher it had retained was neither arbitrary nor capricious and dismissed Fife’s appeal.

* Joining a necessary party requires that the individual be clearly named as a respondent in the caption of the appeal and served with a copy of the notice of petition and the petition itself in order to inform the individual that he or she should respond to the petition and enter a defense.

One party to a collective bargaining agreement cannot compel arbitration of a dispute unless the agreement explicitly so provides

One party to a collective bargaining agreement cannot compel arbitration of a dispute unless the agreement explicitly so provides
Matter of Onondaga Community Coll. v Onondaga Community Coll. Fedn. of Teachers & Adm'rs Aft, Local 1845, 2010 NY Slip Op 09835, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

It is “black letter law” that "A party to an agreement may not be compelled to arbitrate its dispute with another unless the evidence establishes the parties' clear, explicit and unequivocal' agreement to arbitrate."

Citing God's Battalion of Prayer Pentecostal Church, Inc. v Miele Assoc., LLP, 6 NY3d 371, the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court was correct when it granted Onondaga Community College’s Article 75 motion to stay the arbitration of a grievance filed by an employee whose employment was terminated during his probationary period.

Here, said the court, the employee, a software systems administrator, was terminated within three months after he was hired, “while he undisputedly was a probationary employee.” As the controlling collective bargaining agreement [CBA], explained the Appellate Division, “explicitly excludes the termination of employment of probationary administrators” from the grievance procedures set out in the CBA, including the right to arbitration, Supreme Court correctly granted the College’s motion to stay the arbitration.*

The Appellate Division rejected the Federations characterization of the grievance as “one challenging [the College’s] failure to evaluate the employee in question after nine months pursuant to Article IV of the CBA….”

In the words of the court, “The heart of this dispute is the termination of employment, and any failure by [Onondaga Community College] to comply with the evaluation procedures … is irrelevant in view of the CBA provision rendering arbitration unavailable to probationary administrators who are terminated.”

* The collective bargaining agreement provided that administrators "serving in a probationary period other than a probationary period attendant to and resulting from promotions shall not have [any] right, relief, or access to contest disciplinary action, including dismissal from employment, under the grievance procedure contained herein."

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_09835.htm

Constructive criticism or discipline?

Constructive criticism or discipline?
Matter of Fusco, Comm. of Ed. Decision 14,396
Matter of Irving, Comm. of Ed. Decision 14,373

Sometimes it may be difficult to determine the location of that thin line that separates lawful constructive criticism of an individual’s performance by a supervisor and supervisory actions addressing an individual’s performance that are disciplinary in nature.

As the Court of Appeals indicated in Holt v Webutick Central School District, 52 NY2d 625, a counseling memorandum that is given to an employee and placed in his or her personnel file constitutes a lawful means of instructing the employee concerning unacceptable performance and the actions that should be taken by the individual to improve his or her work.

In other words, comments critical of employee performance do not, without more, constitute disciplinary action. On the other hand, counseling letters may not be used as a subterfuge for avoiding initiating formal disciplinary action against a tenured individual.

In the opinion of the Commissioner of Education, the employers crossed the line in both the Fusco and Irving situations.

The Fusco Case

Two questions were raised by Esther Fusco, a tenured Jefferson Central School District school principal, in her appeal to the Commissioner of Education challenging her 1998 performance evaluation that was prepared by the school board itself.

1. Is a school board authorized to conduct performance evaluations of school district administrators?

2. If a school board may undertake such evaluations, did the board’s 1998 performance evaluation of her work constitute disciplinary action?

First Fusco contended that only a school superintendent was authorized to undertake a performance evaluation of school administrators and teachers. Her second complaint: her 1998 was evaluation by the board was unlawful because it constituted disciplinary action within the meaning of Section 3020-a of the Education Law and she was not served with charges or given a hearing.

According to the ruling, Jefferson’s superintendent, Dr. Wayne Jones, prior to his leaving the district in October 1997, had evaluated school administrators. Fusco was not evaluated by any of the district’s acting superintendents who served following Jones’ departure.

On July 29, 1998, the school board gave Fusco a memorandum entitled Board Evaluation of Principal Work Performance in which the board characterized Fusco’s performance during both academic 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 as unsatisfactory. The board’s examples of Fusco’s unsatisfactory performance set out in the evaluation included allegations that Fusco:

1. Demonstrated unsuitable judgment;

2. Exhibited unsuitable behavior;

3. Engaged in insubordinate and disrespectful behavior; and

4. Exhibited poor leadership.

The board placed a copy of its evaluation in Fusco’s personnel file and Fusco appealed to the Commissioner. Fusco argued that:

1. Only the superintendent of schools is authorized to evaluate her performance and thus the board’s action constituted a violation 8 NYCRR 100.2(o); and

2. Assuming that board could conduct such evaluations, the evaluation, when placed in her personnel file, constituted an impermissible disciplinary reprimand, issued without complying with the procedural protections of Education Law Section 3020-a.

The board defended its action, contending that (1) it did, in fact, have authority to evaluate Fusco’s performance and (2) its action was constructive criticism of Fusco’s performance permitted by law and thus did not constitute disciplinary action within the meaning of Section 3020-a.

The Commissioner agreed with the board in part.

First he pointed out that while 8 NYCRR 100.2(o) requires that the superintendent develop formal procedures for the review of the performance of all personnel of the district, there is nothing in the regulation that requires the superintendent to conduct the evaluation.

Accordingly, the Commissioner ruled that in the absence of a provision that would prohibit a board of education from doing so, a school board may itself conduct such an evaluation.

What of Fusco’s second claim -- that the evaluation constituted unlawful disciplinary action and thus must be removed from her personnel file?

The Commissioner said that while the general rule is that personnel given critical administrative evaluations by a supervisor is not entitled to Section 3020-a protections, a disciplinary reprimand may not be issued without a finding of misconduct pursuant to Section 3020-a.

Did Fusco’s evaluation constitute disciplinary action without the benefit of the protections of Section 3020-a? Yes, ruled the Commissioner, it did.

The Commissioner said that contents of the memorandum did not fall within the parameters of a permissible evaluation and despite the board’s representation that it was intended to encourage positive change in Fusco’s performance, it contains no constructive criticism or a single suggestion for improvement. Rather, said the Commissioner, the memorandum focused on castigating [Fusco] for prior alleged misconduct.

Instead of constructive criticism, the Commissioner concluded that the evaluation chastised [Fusco] for serious misconduct, including improper release of confidential information, harassment of staff members, damaging district/union relationships...and poor leadership.

The district was directed to remove the evaluation from Fusco’s personnel file as it does not constitute a performance evaluation but rather an impermissible reprimand.

Two other procedural points were considered by the Commissioner.

The district had also argued that portions of Fusco’s appeal concerned Taylor Law* matters and thus the Commissioner should defer to the Public Employment Relations Board. The district argued that PERB had exclusive jurisdiction over such issues.

The Commissioner ruled that his disposition of the appeal considered matters unrelated to the Taylor Law and thus his dismissal of Fusco’s appeal and deferral to PERB was not required.

In addition, the district asked the Commissioner for permission to submit two additional documents it claimed addressed substantive issues related to Fusco’s conduct after it had filed its answer to Fusco’s petition:

1. An affidavit by an individual; and

2. [A]n affirmation by an attorney.

The Commissioner agreed to accept both documents because that information was not available to the district prior to its submission of its answer.

The Irving Case

Troy City School District Superintendent Armand Reo, after discussing letters of complaint received from parents and other concerns with the school board and Elementary School Principal Mozella Irving, gave Irving a letter of counseling in which he, among other things, said:

You are hereby counseled that in future dealings with the parents of our students you must avoid a confrontational attitude ... avoid making rude or inappropriate comments to parents and you should generally make every attempt to accommodate reasonable requests [received from] parents.

A copy of this letter was placed in Irving’s personnel file.

The next day, October 8, 1999, Reo gave Irving a second letter in which he told her that she was transferred to a different school, where she would serve as assistant principal effective October 14, 1999 and that such action was being taken in the best interest of the school district.

Protesting that her involuntary reassignment and demotion was disciplinary in nature and illegally deprived her of her rights to due process as set out in Section 3020-a of the Education Law, Irving appealed Reo’s action to the Commissioner of Education.

The Commissioner sustained Irving’s appeal, holding that:

The record convinces me that disciplinary action was taken and that Irving was deprived of her rights under Education Law Section 3020-a.

Conceding that Sections 1711 and 2508 of the Education Law authorize a superintendent to transfer personnel, the problem here, said the Commissioner, was that Irving’s alleged staff mistreatment and parental mistreatment were the only reasons for reassigning and demoting Irving set out in the record.

The Commissioner pointed out that the several meetings between Reo and Irving, and Reo and the board, and the two letters given to Irving by Reo, are all part of a single process, and it is inescapable that the sole reason for [Irving’s] transfer was her alleged misconduct as a principal.

Considering all of these circumstances as a whole, the Commissioner concluded that Irving was entitled to the protections of Section 3020-a, including the right to contest formal charges, and those rights have been violated here.

Another consideration that the Commissioner found persuasive: all of the materials submitted by the board in responding to Irving’s appeal were directed toward demonstrating misconduct on the part of [Irving]. This, the Commissioner pointed out, was exactly the type of proof that the district would have been expected to introduce in a Section 3020-a disciplinary hearing.

Rejecting the district’s argument that Irving’s transfer was for the good of the district and thus not disciplinary in nature, the Commissioner said this theory misses the mark. He observed that one would hope that every school district disciplinary action or proceeding, taken in good faith, is for the good of the district.

The Commissioner annulled Irving’s reassignment from her position as principal of School 2 to assistant principal of School 14 without prejudice to any further action, which may be appropriate under the terms of this decision. The standard used by the Commissioner in formulating his ruling:

A superior may issue a letter critical of an individual’s performance and place a copy of such a letter in the individual’s personnel file without initiating disciplinary action pursuant to Section 3020-a where the document deals with a relatively minor shortcoming and urges or directs better performance on the part of the individual in the future.

Had Reo’s letter of October 7, 1999 been the only action taken by the district, said the Commissioner, a plausible argument that Irving had not been subjected to disciplinary action could have been made. However, this letter, coupled with the letter of October 8, 1999 demoting and transferring Irving to another school, together with the discussions of the matter by the board, persuaded the Commissioner that Irving had been disciplined within the meaning of Holt.

Another concern: A counseling memorandum is placed in an individual’s personnel file and later disciplinary charges involving the same event(s) are served upon the individual. Does including the events set out in the counseling memorandum in the charges constitute double jeopardy?

No, according to the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Patterson v Smith, 53 NY2d 98.

In Patterson, the court said that including charges concerning performance that were addressed in a counseling memorandum was not double jeopardy. The court’s rationale: as a proper counseling memoranda contains a warning and an admonition to comply with the expectations of the employer, it is not a form of punishment in and of itself.

Clearly, case law indicates that giving the employee a counseling memorandum does not bar the employer from later filing disciplinary charges based on the same event and the memorandum may be introduced as evidence in the disciplinary hearing or for the purposes of determining the penalty to be imposed if the individual is found guilty.

* As to Taylor Law considerations, PERB has recognized the difference between criticism of employee performance and disciplinary action. In Port Jefferson Union Free School District v United Aides and Assistants, U-5713, PERB rejected a union’s claim that every written criticism of an employee was a reprimand.

Determining the issue in arbitration

Determining the issue in arbitration
Matter of the Schenectady Federation of Teachers, Jeffrey M. Selchick, Esq., Arbitrator

In most instances, the parties are able to agree on the issue to be resolved by the arbitrator among themselves or with the assistance of the arbitrator. This was not the case in the Matter of the Arbitration between the Schenectady Federation of Teachers and the Schenectady City School District. Here the parties simply could not agree on the issue to be decided by Arbitrator Jeffrey M. Selchick.

Did this mean that the matter could not be submitted to the arbitrator?

No, said Selchick, referring to How Arbitration Works by Elkouri and Elkouri, 5th Edition.

Quoting from the text, Selchick said that:

Where the parties cannot agree upon an issue, the arbitrator may arrive at a precise statement of the issue or issues after studying the entire record of the case, including if available, such matters as the original grievance statement and the grievance procedure minutes, the demand for arbitration and any reply of the other party, correspondence of the parties, the transcript of the hearing [or arbitrator’s notes], the parties’ exhibits, and the parties’ briefs.

The collective bargaining agreement provision at issue concerned a requirement that teachers attend meetings, including home school activities -- activities intended to improve students’ achievement levels.

The Federation alleged the District had violated the contract when it gave teachers a schedule setting out the pattern applicable to home school activities under the agreement that required them to perform such activities on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

The issue as formulated by the Federation essentially asked if there was a contractual meeting of the minds. The District, on the other hand, simply assumed that there was such a meeting of the minds and asked the arbitrator to determine if the agreement gave it exclusive authority to schedule home school activities.

Selchick, after reviewing the record, concluded that there was a meeting of the mind and decided that the issue to be resolved was:

Did the District violate ... the Agreement when it established the schedule for home school activities ...?

After considering the contract language, Selchick ruled that the provision was clear -- the District had the right to establish a schedule for all meetings, which includes home school activities ... and, in addition, could require that teachers maintain a professional log recording the activities the teacher performed on a scheduled home school date.