Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board determines if there is disqualifying misconduct for the purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board determines if there is disqualifying misconduct for the purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits
Matter of Green v Village of Hempstead, 2011 NY Slip Op 00137, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Village of Hempstead dismissed Deputy Village Attorney Donna M. Green from her position for alleged misconduct. When the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board approved unemployment insurance benefits for Green, the Village appealed.

Hempstead argued that that the credible evidence established that Green was discharged for conducting her private legal practice on “Village time,” and that her discharge was not, as she claimed, merely politically motivated.

The Appellate Division said that whether an employee was terminated for misconduct is a factual question for the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board to resolve. Thus, said the court, “its resolution of this issue will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence, citing Matter of Ponce, 75 AD3d 1041.

According to the decision, Hempstead said that it had given three memoranda to Green concerning her performance of her duties but Green had testified that she had received only one of these three documents prior to her termination -- and she refuted the claims stated within the documents.

Further, the court said that two witnesses supporting Green’s allegation that she and other members of the Village’s legal staff were discharged for political reasons following the election of a new mayor, and the employer did not offer evidence refuting this testimony.

As to the merits of Hempstead’s opposition to the Board’s determination, the Appellate Division, after reviewing the conflicting evidence, noted that Green's occasional receipt of private legal mail at her Village office, “standing alone, did not conclusively establish that she conducted her private practice on the employer's time.”

The Appellate Division found that “there was no other evidence of wrongdoing [on the part of Green]” and her tardiness on one occasion “does not necessarily constitute disqualifying misconduct … even if [Green’s] explanation was inaccurate. ” citing Matter of Massucci, 8 AD3d 737.

Thus, concluded the court, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that [1] Green had not engaged in disqualifying misconduct and [2] she was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00137.htm

Failure to meet contract deadlines does not void disciplinary action

Failure to meet contract deadlines does not void disciplinary action
Covino v Kane, 273 AD2d 380, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 96 NY2d 701

The significant issue raised in the Covino case concerns the impact of the employer’s failing to meet a contract-specified deadline in issuing a disciplinary determination.

A member of the Nassau County Police Department, Craig S. Covino, was found guilty of violating seven departmental rules and regulations and a disciplinary penalty was imposed.

Covino objected, complaining that the Police Commissioner, issued his decision late in violation of Section 6.3-1 of the collective bargaining agreement between the Police Department and the Covino’s union. This failure to make a timely determination as to Covino’s guilt and the penalty to be imposed as punishment, Covino argued, required that the disciplinary action be rescinded. Section 6.3-1 of the collective bargaining agreement provided that:

A determination as to guilt or innocence and punishment, if any, shall be made within sixty (60) days after the hearing is concluded unless an employee or the [Superior Officers Association] consents to a longer period.

According to the decision, Covino was served with charges and specifications and his disciplinary hearing was concluded in September 1998.

The hearing officer’s report, dated November 20, 1998, recommended that Covino be found guilty of all of the charges preferred against him. On January 4, 1999 the Commissioner concurred with the findings of the hearing officer as to Covino’s being guilty of the charges filed against him and imposed penalties based upon those findings and recommendations.

Should the Commissioner’s determination be overturned because he failed to meet the 60-day deadline for issuing a decision as required by the agreement?

No! said the Supreme Court, Nassau County, the Commissioner’s decision should not be vacated or rescinded and dismissed Covino’s petition. The court ruled that in the absence of specific language barring further action, an employer’s failure to act within the time frame contemplated in a collective bargaining agreement does not preclude further action by the employer.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed.

In affirming the lower court’s ruling, the Appellate Division pointed out that in interpreting similar contractual provisions, the Second Department has repeatedly held that, in the absence of prejudice, the failure to timely render a determination pursuant to the terms of the parties’ contract does not warrant vacatur of the determination, citing Correctional Unit Employees v State of New York Department of Correctional Services, 236 AD2d 546.

The decision by the Appellate Division suggests that the Supreme Court decided, or assumed, that the 60-day period for the Commissioner to issue a timely decision in accordance with relevant contract provision started when the hearing was concluded in September 1999. If, on the other hand, the disciplinary hearing is not deemed concluded until the hearing officer issued his or her determination and recommendations, this 60-day period would begin to run not before the date the hearing officer issued his or her report -- November 20, 1998.

Another case contract time limits: City of Newburgh v DeGidio, 273 A.D.2d 468. In this Article 75 action to stay arbitration, the Appellate Division to the parties to proceed to arbitration to resolve the issue. Reversing the Supreme Court’s ruling to the contrary, the Appellate Division, citing County of Rockland v Primiano Construction Co., 51 NY2d 1, held:

Where the collective bargaining agreement does not contain an express provision making compliance with the time limitations set forth in the grievance procedure a condition precedent to binding arbitration, the issues related to compliance with the time limitations set forth in the grievance procedure are matters of procedural arbitrability for the arbitrator to decide.

In other words, the arbitrator is to decide whether if the demand for arbitration was valid under the terms of the agreement.
___________________

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State. a 1020 page e-book is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/ for additional information concerning this electronic handbook.

Transfer to a different retirement plan

Transfer to a different retirement plan
Overton v Southampton, 273 AD2d 242; Motion for leave to appeal denied, 95 NY2d 764

In the Overton case, the Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled that if a member of the State Employees’ Retirement System transfers from one plan to a different plan, he or she is subject to the relevant provisions of law concerning the plan into which he or she has transferred.

The Town of Southampton adopted a resolution on November 23, 1999. This resolution terminated the employment of its Chief of Police, James P. Overton, effective January 7, 1999, Overton’s 55th birthday. The Town’s action was based on the retirement plan to which Overton had previously transferred -- the Section 384-d plan.

According to the decision, although Overton was initially enrolled in a 25-year retirement plan with a mandatory retirement age of 70, he later elected to transfer into an optional 20-year retirement plan when the optional plan became available to the Town’s police officers pursuant to Section 384-d of the Retirement and Social Security Law.

Although Section 384-d requires members to retire no later than age 62, in 1971 a new subdivision, subdivision (m), was added to Section 384-d. Subdivision m applied only to Southampton law enforcement personnel and required police officers in the Section 384-d plan to retire at age 55.

Subdivision (m) provides that [n]otwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, if the town board of the town of Southampton elects to make the benefits of this section available to the members of its police department, each member of such department shall be separated from service upon completion of twenty years of service, provided, however, that the town board may permit a member to continue in service on an annual basis after the completion of twenty years of service, but in no event shall such annual service be continued after a member has attained age fifty-five.

Approaching age 55, Overton decided he wanted to withdraw from the Section 384-d 20-year plan and transfer back into the 25-year plan so that he could continue his employment with the Town after reaching age 55. The Town, however, adopted a resolution separating him from service effective January 7, 2000, his 55th birthday.

Another factor in the litigation: The State Comptroller had issued an opinion indicating that Section 384-d(m) requires any Town police officer who ever enrolled in the 20-year plan to separate from service at age 55, regardless of whether the officer has subsequently withdrawn from the plan.*

Overton sued the Town and the Comptroller in an effort to annul the Town’s action and be approved for transfer into another plan. Unsuccessful in Supreme Court, he appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling, holding that the resolution in question adopted by the Town of Southampton on November 23, 1999, is annulled.

The rationale for the court’s annulling the Town’s resolution:

Section 384-d(b) of the Retirement and Social Security Law allows a member who elects to participate in a 20-year plan to withdraw from the plan and enroll in another retirement plan. According to the decision, the plain meaning of the statute, read as a whole, is that a Town police officer may withdraw from the 20-year plan and enroll in another available retirement plan.

The court rejected the Town’s arguments in support of its action, commenting that subdivision (m) does not require a member who changes plans to nevertheless retire at age 55.

The court said that nothing in the Retirement and Social Security Law suggests that Overton was required to retire at age 55 upon his transfer to another plan with a higher mandatory retirement age.

The bottom line: the court decided that Overton has the right to withdraw from the 20-year retirement plan and transfer to the 25-year retirement plan available to Town police officers with a mandatory retirement age of 70.

* The Comptroller was severed from the lawsuit, having earlier agreed that if the Town’s resolution is annulled, the Retirement System would not prevent Overton from continuing in service and obtaining credit for such service for “retirement allowance” purposes.