Competing union interests

Competing union interests
Buffalo CSD v Local 264, 270 AD2d 814

Suppose an arbitration award in favor of an employee in one collective bargaining unit adversely affects an employee of the same employer in another collective bargaining unit. What can the second employee’s union do about the award?

This was the issue considered by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in the Buffalo City School District case. Its conclusion: In this instance, nothing!

The two unions involved, AFSCME Local 264 [Local 264] and the Professional, Clerical and Technical Employees Association [PCTEA], represented different negotiating units of individuals employed by the Buffalo City School District.

The PCTEA collective bargaining agreement included a provision that gave its unit members preference in selection for promotion. Here the first and second ranking eligibles on a promotion list were Local 264 unit members; third on the list was a PCTEA unit member.

The Board promoted the first eligible on the list, a member of the unit represented by Local 264, to the vacancy. Its action, of course, was consistent with the exercise of its discretion within the meaning of Section 61 of the Civil Service Law -- the so-called rule of three.

PCTEA, however, filed a contract grievance, claiming Buffalo had violated the collective bargaining agreement when it appointed the Local 264 unit member and ultimately the matter went to arbitration. The arbitrator sustained PCTEA position, ruling that the Board, by appointing a Local 264 unit member to the vacancy had:

1. Violated its collective bargaining agreement with PCTEA;

2. Violated a past practice; and

3. Failed to comply with the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Professional, Clerical and Technical Employees Association v Buffalo Board of Education, 90 NY2d 364.

In PCTEA v Buffalo, the Court of Appeals held that no strong public policy prohibits an appointing authority from agreeing through collective negotiations to give promotional preference to certain members on an eligible list where a probationary period precedes their permanent appointment.*

In contrast to the situation in Buffalo v Local 264, in the earlier case, PCTEA v Buffalo, the highest-scoring candidate on the promotion eligible list for the position, as well as the next four individuals on the promotion list, were all PCTEA unit members.

The arbitrator directed the Board to promote the PCTEA member, who was ranked third on the list, to the position with back pay, which, of course, meant that the Local 264 member would be terminated from the position.

The Board brought an Article 75 action in an effort to vacate the award.

Local 264 tried to intervene in the litigation on behalf of its member, but the Appellate Division said that it did not have any standing to do so. The Appellate Division also reversed the lower court’s ruling vacating the award.

Why didn’t Local 264 have standing? Because, the Appellate Division explained, [a]lthough the rights of the employees represented by Local 264 are adversely affected by the arbitration award, Local 264 was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement at issue or the arbitration.

Despite the award’s adverse impact on a member of Local 264 and the contractual preference favoring PCTEA members for selection for promotion, the court said that no strong public policy was violated justifying the vacating of the award.

Further, said the court, the fact that Local 264 members were first and second on the promotion list did not change the result, rejecting the Board’s argument that the arbitration award violated the merit and fitness mandate set out in Article V, Section 6 of the State Constitution.

While the member of Local 264 who was first on the promotion list was actually selected for the appointment, the court said that Article V, Section 6, does not require that the top candidate be selected. The negotiated agreement, however, mandated that the PCTEA member highest on the list, and otherwise reachable for appointment, be selected for the appointment.

Since Section 61 of the Civil Service Law permits the selection of one of the top three candidates from the eligible list, the award does not automatically bar members of Local 264 from promotional positions for which a member of PCTEA might be considered because a PCTEA member may not be one of the top three candidates.

The court’s rationale for upholding such a provision contained in a collective bargaining agreement:

The promotional practices of a public employer constitute a term or condition of employment that may be determined through collective bargaining under the Taylor Law. Accordingly, in the absence of a prohibition in statutory or decisional law, or countervailing public policy, provisions which relate to the use of preferences in the promotion of unit members based on examination scores concern a term or condition of employment and thus are a proper subject for collective bargaining and subsequent resolution of disputes through contract arbitration procedures.

* Randall comments: The decision states that the appointment of the PCTEA unit member does not become a permanent appointment until the expiration of a 60-day probationary period. Thus, said the court, the Board has the opportunity to assess other character traits that may have been unmeasurable by the competitive examination.

I believe that it is more accurate to characterize such an employee’s status as permanent subject to the satisfactory completion of a probationary period as all such probationary appointments are permanent appointments or, under certain circumstances, a contingent permanent appointment.

As an example, most probationary periods are set with a minimum and a maximum period of probation. Courts have held that a probationary employee in the competitive class who is to be dismissed before completing his or her minimum period of probation is entitled to notice and hearing within the meaning of Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Essentially individuals holding permanent appointment in the competitive class, certain employees in the non-competitive class, veterans who served in time of war and exempt volunteer firefighters are covered by Section 75.

A probationer may be dismissed without notice and hearing after completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation for the position. If the employee is retained after completing the maximum period of probation, he or she has acquired tenure in the position for the purposes of Section 75.

Another example: for the purpose determining seniority in layoffs pursuant to Sections 80 and 80-a of the Civil Service Law, the individual’s initial date of uninterrupted permanent service controls. Such seniority runs from the date on which the employee commenced his or her original probationary period, not the date on which he or she satisfactorily completed that probationary period.
.

Administrative decisions and actions must be made in compliance to the law

Administrative decisions and actions must be made in compliance to the law
Cimino v Grasso, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, #14,319

Michael J. Cimino asked the Commissioner of Education to remove members of the board of education and the superintendent of the Plainedge Union Free School District.

The complaint: the board and the superintendent had spent $79,000 to illegally construct and equip a room for the board without first obtaining voter approval, without getting competitive bids and without the board adopting a resolution authorizing the expenditures.

Cimino also alleged that expenditures for the purchase of computers, computer desks and online service for home use by board members constitutes an unconstitutional gift of public monies [Article VIII, Section 1].

Contending that all the expenditures were made in good faith and for legitimate district interests, school superintendent Gene Grasso took full responsibility for the decision to fund the projects with operation and maintenance monies rather than as capital expenses. He also said that the board had absolutely no involvement in the project.

The Commissioner, with certain exceptions, said that serious violations of law and policy have occurred in this matter. However, he also stated that removal from office is a drastic remedy that should be taken only in extreme circumstances. As there was no evidence that the superintendent or board members willfully violated the law and the construction constituted a substantial and continuing benefit to the district, the Commissioner declined to exercise his power of removal.

The superintendent and the board members were told to be absolutely scrupulous in their future compliance with the law, as additional violations of this kind may well subject them to removal.
.

All about "cloud computing"

All about "cloud computing"
Source: Sui Generis - a New York Law Blog written by Nicole Black, Esq. at http://nylawblog.typepad.com/suigeneris/

Nicole Black explains the basics of “cloud computing” in an article published in the March 14, 2011 issue of the Daily Record.

It is posted on the Internet at:
http://nylawblog.typepad.com/files/dr-3.14.11.pdf
.

Serving disciplinary charges on an employee in a disciplinary probation period status does not preclude his or her summary termination

Serving disciplinary charges on an employee in a disciplinary probation period status does not preclude his or her summary termination
Matter of Nieves-Diaz v City of New York, 37 AD3d 356

After being served with disciplinary charges while serving a disciplinary probation period, New York City Police Detective Luis Nieves-Diaz was summarily terminated from the Department without being given a pre-termination hearing on those charges.

In response to Nieves-Diaz’s appeal challenging his termination, the Appellate Division said that because Nieves-Diaz was on “dismissal probation,” he was subject to termination for any reason or for no reason, and without explanation, as long as the termination was not made in bad faith or for an impermissible reason.

Nieves-Diaz’s appeal did not allege that his termination was made in bad faith or for an impermissible reason.

Noting that the Department had “broad prerogative” to terminate Nieves-Diaz as a probationary employee, the Appellate Division ruled that the fact that Nieves-Diaz was served with disciplinary charges while in disciplinary probation status did not preclude his summary termination as a probationary employee.

Thus, said the court, the Department was not required to provide Nieves-Diaz with a “pre-termination hearing” regarding the charges that were served on him while he was in probationary status as a “condition precedent” to his dismissal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/summary-termiination-during.html
.

A public employer may not unilaterally discontinue a past practice but must negotiate any proposed change with the appropriate employee organization

A public employer may not unilaterally discontinue a past practice but must negotiate any proposed change with the appropriate employee organization
Matter of Meegan v Brown, 2011 NY Slip Op 01158, Appellate Division

The City of Buffalo appealed the denial of its Article 75 motion seeking a stay of arbitration to address a grievance filed by Buffalo Police Benevolent Association President Robert P. Meegan, Jr. challenging the City’s refusal to pay certain collective bargaining agreement (CBA) benefits to police officers receiving General Municipal Law §207-c benefits

Affirming the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the City’s motion, the Appellate Division said that although “It is well settled that the benefits provided to a police officer pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c are exclusive, and a CBA will not be construed as impliedly expanding such benefit.,” there is no prohibition against a CBA providing for enhancements to §207-c benefits provided by law.

As the City of Buffalo conceded, it had been paying CBA benefits to police officers receiving General Municipal Law §207-c benefits for over 40 years. Viewing this as a “past practice” providing for certain “fringe benefits for current employees,” the Appellate Division held that such a past practice cannot be unilaterally modified by the public employer “even where unrelated to any specific contractual provision.” The court explained that a public employer has "a duty to negotiate with the bargaining representative of current employees regarding any change in past practice affecting [such] benefits."

The Appellate Division also observed that the CBA contained a "Maintenance of Benefits" clause.

This clause, said the court, provided that "[a]ll conditions or provisions beneficial to employees now in effect [that] are not specifically provided for in [the CBA] or [that] have not been replaced by provisions of [the CBA] shall remain in effect for the duration of [the CBA], unless mutually agreed otherwise between the City and [petitioner Buffalo Police Benevolent Association]."

Clearly, said the court, the City also had a contractual duty to negotiate a change in any past practice and it lacked the authority to unilaterally discontinue the payment of the benefits at issue to police officers receiving General Municipal Law §207-c benefits.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01158.htm

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

General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder is available from the Public Employment Law Press. For more information click on http://section207.blogspot.com/

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

Hearing officer rejects motion to seal disciplinary hearing records but redacts the name of the victim of the employee's misconduct

Hearing officer rejects motion to seal disciplinary hearing records but redacts* the name of the victim of the employee's misconduct
Fire Department v Palleschi, OATH Index #551/11

In this Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary action, an EMT Lieutenant was charged with “bringing the agency into disrepute and showing disrespect to the public.” OATH Administrative Law Judge Joan Salzman said that the Lieutenant admitted the charges “in all material respects” and that the critical issue was her recommendation to as to the appropriate penalty for such misconduct.

Judge Salzman recommended the termination of an EMS lieutenant who admitted that he had posted private and confidential patient information on his Facebook page, "where 460 of his friends could see it for their amusement."

Significantly, Judge Salzman rejected a motion made after the close of the evidence whereby the parties jointly asked to have the Administrative Law Judge “seal the entire record.”

The ALJ explained her reason as follows:

I declined, because this was a public hearing, 48 RCNY §1-49 (Lexis 2009), and there was no reason to seal the entire record. See Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345, 348-49 (1st Dep’t 2010) (“Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records”; public right to access is not absolute, and confidentiality is the exception, not the rule). However, I did indicate to the parties that I was not going to identify the patient in my decision and directed them to review the transcript and exhibits and to redact her identity (meaning name, address, and phone number) from this record should it be sought for publication or filed in court. Even though that information was on the Internet, I see no reason to republish it.

* Remove or black out material in a document prior to its publication or release.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-192.pdf
..

Complying with all statutory tests critical to sustaining an administrative decision

Complying with all statutory tests critical to sustaining an administrative decision
Gallo v Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37 AD3d 984

Albert P. Gallo’s application for employment as a bus driver with the Schenectady County Chapter NYSARC, Inc. (ARC) was rejected by OMRDD after it found that Gallo had been convicted of assault in the second degree in 1988.

OMRDD said that his employment as an ARC driver involved an unreasonable risk to the safety or welfare of consumers served by ARC in view of this conviction. Gallo sued, asking the court to overturn OMRDD’s determination.

Supreme Court found the record “insufficiently developed” and annulled OMRDD’s determination. The court also directed OMRDD to approve ARC's employment of Gallo but denied Gallo counsel fees. The parties cross-appealed, OMRDD from that part of the judgment annulling its determination and directing it to approve Gallo’s employment by ARC and Gallo from the denial of counsel fees.

The Appellate Division said that OMRDD is required by statute to undertake criminal history background checks of employees of voluntary corporations such as Schenectady ARC. It noted that when Gallo’s background check revealed the 1988 assault in the second-degree conviction, OMRDD notified Gallo of its finding. It also advised him “to submit any answering documentation.”

After receiving Gallo’s letter of explanation and letters of reference, OMRDD rejected Gallo’s application, indicating that its decision was “on the grounds that [Gallo was] convicted of a crime or crimes” and that this determination was consistent with the provisions of Correction Law Article 23-A.

The court noted that Correction Law Section 753, which is part of Article 23-A, sets out eight elements that a public agency is to consider in making a determination pursuant to Correction Law Section 752 concerning licensure or employment of any individual with a criminal conviction. In the words of the Appellate Division:

When all eight factors are considered and the positive factors are balanced against the negative factors, the resulting decision is neither arbitrary nor capricious nor does it constitute an abuse of discretion and reviewing courts may not reweigh the factors and substitute their judgment for that of the agency.

In this instance, however, the Appellate Division found that a number of the statutory elements required to be considered were not set out in the “checklist” that OMRDD claimed mirrored the statutory factors and was used in making OMRDD’s determination regarding Gallo’s eligibility for employment by ARC.

Because these factors were apparently not considered, the Appellate Division ruled that OMRDD’s determination was arbitrary. It remitted the matter back to OMRDD for its consideration of “the public policy issue and for a determination of whether a certificate of relief from disabilities or good conduct or the equivalent evidence would benefit this applicant.”

Addressing the issue of the attorney fees claimed by Gallo, the court said it that denial of counsel fees was not premature and OMRDD’s position herein “may ultimately prove to be correct” and, in any event, “it was substantially justified.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/complying-with-all-statutory-tests.html
.

While a public employer may abolish a position for reasons of economy or efficiency, it may not do so to avoid a civil servant’s statutory rights

While a public employer may abolish a position for reasons of economy or efficiency, it may not do so to avoid a civil servant’s statutory rights
Matter of Gallagher v Board of Educ. for Buffalo City School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 01163, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

James F. Gallagher, in his capacity as president of the responsible employee organization, challenged the Buffalo City School District’s abolishing the positions of Director of Emergency Planning for the Buffalo City School District and Stenographic Secretary to the Superintendent and in replacing them with nearly identical civil-service exempt confidential positions.

Contending that the School District had acted in bad faith in abolishing these positions, Gallagher asked Supreme Court to annul the District’s decision abolishing the items.

Supreme Court granted the petition Gallagher’s petition and the Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division rejected the School District’s contention that they were entitled to abolish the position of Director of Emergency Planning because “they are entitled to abolish a position at any time” as being without merit.

While, the court explained, "A public employer may in good faith abolish a civil service position for reasons of economy or efficiency, but a position may not be abolished as a subterfuge to avoid the statutory protection afforded to civil servants," citing Hartman v Erie 1 BOCES Bd. of Educ., 204 AD2d 1037.

The Appellate Division said that in this instance the record showed that the position of Director of Emergency Planning was abolished in favor of a re-created civil-service exempt position entitled Homeland Security Coordinator. Yet, said the court, the School District “presented no evidence justifying the need for that position to be re-created for reasons of economy or efficiency, nor did they justify the need for that position to be classified as civil-service exempt.”

The court said that the primary duty of both the abolished Director position and the "re-created" Director position was the responsibility for emergency preparedness, including the implementation of safety plans and the organization of training programs and the knowledge, skill and ability for both positions appeared identical.

The Appellate Division said that with respect to the Stenographic Secretary position, the record supports a finding that it was abolished in bad faith.

Again, said the court, the School District did not present any evidence justifying the need to replace the Stenographic Secretary position with the newly created Confidential Secretary position for reasons of economy or efficiency, nor did they justify the need for that position to be classified as civil-service exempt.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01163.htm

=========================
The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click On http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.
=========================
.

Employer’s filing appropriate Workers’ Compensation claims forms defeats “statute of limitation” objection to payment employee’s claim

Employer’s filing appropriate Workers’ Compensation claims forms defeats “statute of limitation” objection to payment employee’s claim
Matter of Kwadzogah v New York City Health & Hosp. Corp, 2011 NY Slip Op 01389, Appellate Division, Third Department

An employer waives the limitations defense by making payments of compensation to a claimant in the form of wages, medical treatment or other compensable expenses that carry a "recognition or acknowledgment of liability under the Workers' Compensation Law"

In this case the Appellate Division found that Innocencia Kwadzogah had sustained a work-related injury on July 29, 2006, but did not lose any time from work at that time and therefore did not file a claim for workers' compensation benefits.

In June 2008, however, Kwadzogah lost time from work as a result of the injury and filed a claim for benefits on July 30, 2008 — one day after the expiration of the limitations period of Workers' Compensation Law §28.

When her employer, the New York City Health and Hospital Corporation opposed the claim, alleging that it was time-barred, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that the employer had waived the limitations defense by making payments of compensation to claimant with an acknowledgment of liability.

Intimately the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed and HHC appealed.

The Appellate Division found that substantial evidence existed in the record* to support the Board's determination that HHC made payments to Kwadzogah “with a recognition of liability and, thus, waived the statute of limitations defense.”

Further, said the court, HHC did not file a notice of controversy, however, which it was required to do within 25 days of the Board's mailing of the notice of indexing if it intended to contest the claim (see Workers' Compensation Law §25[2][b]).

Cited as substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that HHC had waived the statute of limitations defense by:

1. Making payments of compensation to Kwadzogah with an acknowledgment of liability:

2. Filing a C-2 form reporting the injury as a work-related injury, offeredKwadzogah medical treatment; and

3. Filed a C-669 form (notice of carrier's action on a claim for benefits) with the Board in which HHC reported that the "claim [was] not disputed."

In addition, said the Appellate Division, HHC filed a C-11 form (Employer's report of injured employee's change in employment status resulting from injury) reporting to the Workers' Compensation Board that Kwadzogah had lost time beginning in June 2008 and indicating that, for part of that time, it had made payments to Kwadzogah.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01389.htm
.

Federal charges characterized as involving “the failings of New York State government” and highlighting the need for comprehensive reform legislation

Federal charges characterized as involving “the failings of New York State government” and highlighting the need for comprehensive reform legislation
Source: Office of the Governor

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara has filed a 53-page complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America v Carl Kruger, Richard Lipsky, Aaron Malinski, Solomon Kalish, Robert Aquino, David Rosen, William Boyland, Jr. and Michael Turano, alleging violations of 18 USC §§1341, 1343, 1346, 1349, and 1956(a)(1)(B) and (h).

In a press release issued March 10, 2011, concerning the complaint, Governor Cuomo said:

"Today's arrests again spotlight the failings of New York State government and highlight the urgent need for the legislature to pass comprehensive ethics reform - now. During the campaign, I made a commitment that we would either pass real ethics reform with real disclosure and real enforcement or I would form a Moreland Commission on public integrity. New Yorkers deserve a clean and transparent government comprised of officials who work for the people, not for the special interests and certainly not for their own corrupt self-interests. Today, I reaffirm my commitment to clean up Albany and state clearly that either ethics legislation will be passed or I will form a Moreland Commission by the end of this legislative session."

The compliant filed by the U.S. Attorney is available on the Internet at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50454766/Kruger-Carl-et-al-Complaint
.

Failure to file prehearing statements required by the reviewing agency’s rules held to constitute a “waiver of defenses”

Failure to file prehearing statements required by the reviewing agency’s rules held to constitute a “waiver of defenses”
Matter of Smith v Albany County Sheriff's Dept., 2011 NY Slip Op 01559, Appellate Division, Third Department

Raymond C. Smith, a correction officer with the Albany County Sheriff’s Department, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging that he suffered depression and anxiety due to harassment at his work place.

Although the Sheriff Department workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, it failed to file a prehearing conference statement as required by the Rules of the Workers’ Compensation Board [12 NYCRR 300.38 (f) (1)]. As a result, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge held that the employer waived its defenses and, upon review of the medical records submitted by Smith, established the claim for a mental injury caused by work-related stress.*

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the Law Judge’s ruling and the insurance carrier appealed.

The Appellate Division, finding that Smith had submitted records sufficient to sustain the conclusion that the stress that caused the injury was greater than that experienced by others working in similar capacities and dismissed the carrier’s appeal.

The court explained that the prehearing conference statement requiring the employer to include, among other things, an offer of proof for each defense raised is designed to "facilitate the just, speedy and efficient disposition of the claimant's right to workers' compensation benefits, including settlement." The Appellate Division decided that providing by rule for a “waiver of defenses” for failing to file the statement is not an unreasonable expansion of the statute.**

* In contrast, Section 2(7) of the Workers’ Compensation Law specifically excludes from compensation "an injury which is solely mental and is based on work related stress if such mental injury is a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer."

** Similarly, the Aures decision demonstrates the problem that could result if a party fails to appear at an administrative hearing as scheduled -- the hearing officer may hold the hearing "in absentia" and the determination will be binding on the parties [Aures v Buffalo Board of Education 272 AD2d 664].

The Smith decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01559.htm
.

Courts may not revive an expired eligible list

Courts may not revive an expired eligible list
Matter of Leone v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 01701, Appellate Division, First Department

Vincent Leone filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to reinstate an expired promotion list for the position of Sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He also asked he court to direct his retroactive promotion to the rank of Sergeant from the “reestablished eligible list.”

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of Leone’s petition, holding that Leone acknowledged that he may not be promoted from an expired list and the courts do not have the power to extend the life of a civil service list.

Leone had argued that “he was the victim of the Department's "illegal quota" system.” The court, however, said that his claimed “lacks evidentiary support.”

Further, said the Appellate Division, “given, among other things, [Leone’s] extensive disciplinary history,” the appointing authority “had a rational basis for declining to promote him.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01701.htm
.

Employee terminated for falsifying attendance records and other misconduct

Employee terminated for falsifying attendance records and other misconduct
Dinnocenzo v Lackawanna, 270 AD2d 840

In Dinnocenzo the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, sustained the termination of an employee found guilty of falsifying his time records and other offenses.

James Dinnocenzo was charged, and found guilty, of disciplinary charges alleging misconduct and insubordination. Among the specifications:

1. Unauthorized absence from work;

2. Failure to obey his superior’s orders to report his absences; and

3. Submitting time sheets falsely indicating the hours that he was present at work.

Finding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of guilt, the court said that in light of all the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the misconduct as to be `shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ -- the Pell doctrine [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222].

As to Dinnocenzo’s testimony concerning the reason for his absences and minimizing the length of those absences, this, said the court, raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. The Hearing Officer apparently was not persuaded by Dinnocenzo’s efforts to explain his actions.
.

Rebutting a statutory presumption

Rebutting a statutory presumption
Hutnik v Kelly, 37 AD3d 346

New York City police officer John Hutnik applied for accident disability retirement benefits pursuant to Section 207-k of the General Municipal Law. Section 207-k creates a rebuttable presumption that Hutnik’s “heart-related disability” underlying his application for accidental disability retirement benefits was service-related.

In this instance the Appellate Division found that this statutory presumption was “rebutted by credible evidence” that Hutnik did not suffer from a heart-related disability, notwithstanding his personal physician’s opinion to the contrary. As there was no other evidence or claim presented by Hutnik as to any other possible cause for the medical condition underlying his claim, the Appellate Division sustained the rejection of his application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/rebuttable-presumption.html

Failure to exhaust the available administrative remedy to challenge a determination held a fatal defect in seeking judicial relief

Failure to exhaust the available administrative remedy to challenge a determination held a fatal defect in seeking judicial relief
Matter of Connor v Town of Niskayuna, 2011 NY Slip Op 01556, Appellate Division, Third Department

A number of police officers submitted applications for membership in the New York State and Local Retirement System. Although advised of the availability of two optional retirement plans available to them pursuant to §§384 and 384-d of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and that an election to become a member of either optional retirement plan must be filed within one year of becoming a police officer or member of the Retirement System, none of the police officers in this action filed an election to become a member of either of the two optional plans when they submitted their applications. Accordingly, they were automatically enrolled in the retirement plan provided by Retirement and Social Security Law §375-c.

The police officers subsequently filed an application for enrollment in the §384-d retirement plan. The Comptroller, however, issued a written determination declining to process their respective applications because the statutory one-year election period had expired.

The police officers involved then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the Comptroller to accept their applications and to make all contributions required in connection with their membership in the §384-d plan. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the police officers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, pointing out “It is hornbook law that one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law," citing Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52.

Here, said the court, the Retirement and Social Security Law sets out the procedure for challenging a retirement benefit determination made by the Comptroller whereby the disappointed individual is to request a hearing and redetermination and then, upon final determination of the Comptroller, he or she commence a CPLR Article 78 proceeding.

In this instance, despite their dissatisfaction with the Comptroller's decision to reject their applications as untimely, the police officers failed to avail themselves of the proceedures set out in Retirement and Social Security Law §374(d).* The Appellate Division said that that the Comptroller's written refusal to process their applications constituted a "determination" within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §374(c).

As the police officers could have challenged the rejections of their respective applications by requesting a hearing and redetermination, they failed to do so. Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly dismissed their Article 78 petition for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to them by statute.

*§374.d provides, in pertinent part, that: “At any time within four months … the applicant or his [or her] counsel may serve a written demand upon the comptroller for a hearing and redetermination of such application. … The comptroller shall have the same power upon such hearing as upon the original application. After such hearing the comptroller shall make his final determination. A copy thereof shall be mailed to the applicant and his [or her] counsel, if any. Such final determination shall be subject to review only as provided in article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01556.htm
.

FMLA does not cover faith healing trip

FMLA does not cover faith healing trip
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Tayag v. Lahey Clinic, ____F.3d____(1st Cir. Jan. 22, 2011), is both an interesting and important case. The First Circuit held that a company that fired a woman for taking unapproved time off to accompany her husband on a “faith healing” trip did not violate the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. The circuit agreed with a lower court's finding that the trip, a seven-week “healing pilgrimage” was not protected under the statute “because it was effectively a vacation.” Such travel is not “medical care” as defined by the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §2601.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

NYPPL Comments: In Sanni v NYS Office of Mental Health [USDC, EDNY, decided February 15, 2000], “faith healing” was one of the issues in a disciplinary action.

Thomas Sanni, then employed in a grade 27 project director position at Kings Park Psychiatric Center, was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.

Ultimately a hearing officer found Sanni guilty of 11 of the 14 charges filed against him. Among the charges for which Sanni was found guilty: “Improperly participating in and supporting the decision to employ the minister of [Sanni’s] church to exorcise a patient 'possessed by spirits.'”
.

Employer’s “one-strike rule” denying employment to applicants who test positive for drug or alcohol use did not have an unlawful disparate impact on rehabilitated drug addicts
Source: Posted on the Internet in CCH Workday at http://cch-workday.blogspot.com/ . Reproduced with permission. Copyright© CCH 2011, All rights reserved.

Rejecting disparate treatment and disparate impact claims brought under the ADA and California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by a former drug addict who was denied a longshoreman’s job, a divided Ninth Circuit panel upheld the Pacific Maritime Association’s “one-strike rule,” which automatically eliminates from consideration job applicants who test positive for drug or alcohol use (Lopez v Pacific Maritime Assoc, 09-55698 March 2, 2011). Not only was it lawful for the employer association to eliminate applicants who were using drugs when they applied to be longshore workers, it was also permissible to disqualify those applicants permanently, the appeals court [Judge Pregerson dissented in part] held, affirming summary judgment to the employer association.

While the one-strike rule imposes a harsh penalty, and many people question the rule’s reasonableness in light of the fact that many drug users later rehabilitate themselves, “unreasonable rules do not necessarily violate the ADA or the FEHA,” the majority wrote.

The employer association represents shipping lines, stevedore companies, and terminal operators that run the ports along the west coast, negotiating bargaining agent and administering payroll and hiring policies. One of those policies is the one-strike rule, under which the association rejects outright any job applicant who tests positive for drug or alcohol use during the pre-employment screening process. Applicants are notified at least seven days in advance of administering the drug test. Failing the drug test, even once, disqualifies an applicant permanently from future employment.

The plaintiff first applied for a longshoreman position in 1997 at a Long Beach, California port. At that time, however, he suffered from an addiction to drugs and alcohol, and tested positive for marijuana at the time of his drug test; he was therefore disqualified from further consideration under the one-strike rule. He became clean and sober in 2002 and, in 2004, reapplied to be a longshoreman. However, because of the one-strike rule, his application was rejected. He attempted to appeal, but the employer does not entertain appeals from disqualifications arising from positive drug tests. This action followed, alleging the employer violated the ADA and the FEHA by discriminating against him on the basis of his protected status as a rehabilitated drug addict. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer.

Disparate treatment. The plaintiff asserted three arguments in support of his disparate treatment claim, none of which prevailed. First, he claimed the one-strike rule facially discriminates against recovering or recovered drug addicts. The appeals court disagreed. “The rule eliminates all candidates who test positive for drug use, whether they test positive because of a disabling drug addiction or because of an untimely decision to try drugs for the first time, recreationally, on the day before the drug test,” the appeals court reasoned. “Conversely, the rule allows a drug addicted applicant who happens to be sober at the time of the drug test to complete pre-employment processing successfully. . . The triggering event for purposes of the one-strike rule is a failed drug test, not an applicant’s drug addiction.” The majority cited the Supreme Court’s 2003 opinion in Raytheon Co v Hernandez in support. There, the Court held that an employer’s policy not to rehire workers who lost their jobs due to drug-related misconduct constituted a neutral, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire an aggrieved employee.

Next, the plaintiff argued that the employer adopted the one-strike rule intentionally to exclude recovering and recovered drug addicts from its workforce. However, the record belies that allegation, the appeals court found. Before adopting the measure, the longshore industry suffered numerous serious accidents and injuries, including several fatalities. These incidents were attributed in part to a workplace culture that permitted drug and alcohol use. Conducting pre-employment drug screening in order to eliminate job applicants who would be more likely to use drugs or alcohol at work was a union-approved approach to these safety concerns. The employer decided to make permanent the disqualification of applicants who tested positive because it thought that applicants who could not abstain from using an illegal drug, even after receiving advance notice of an upcoming drug test, showed less responsibility and less interest in the job than applicants who passed the drug test. As such, there was no evidence that the employer rejected applicants who tested positive based on a calculation that an applicant might test positive because of a drug addiction, rather than because of recreational use.

Finally, the plaintiff contended, summary judgment was in error because the employer only learned of the plaintiff’s drug addiction shortly after disqualifying him. This assertion only served to undermine his claim, however, that he was disqualified from employment due to his protected status as a recovering addict. If it were truly unaware that a disability existed, it would be impossible for the employer’s hiring decision to have been based, even in part, on the applicant’s stated disability, and he could not, ipso facto, have been subject to disparate treatment, the court wrote.

Disparate impact. The plaintiff’s disparate impact claim also failed. While he argued that the one-strike rule disparately affected recovering drug addicts by eliminating anyone who previously tested positive for drug use, the plaintiff offered “only the bald assertion that this result must be so.” However, “as we have noted, the rule does not necessarily screen out recovering drug addicts disproportionately.” The plaintiff must have produced evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the one-strike rule results in the employer hiring fewer recovering drug addicts, as compared to the number of qualified recovered drug addicts in the relevant labor market. The record contains neither statistical nor anecdotal evidence to that effect, notwithstanding an affidavit from a forensic economist introduced by the plaintiff in support of this assertion.

Dissent.

Judge Pregerson dissented in part; he would have allowed the plaintiff to advance his disparate impact claim based on the forensic expert testimony that drug addicts are disproportionately affected by the lifetime ban, as well as evidence that at least 27 individuals were subjected to the ban during roughly the same period. “Because the identities of those individuals are protected, the court does not know which, if any, of them were drug addicts rather than casual users, or which of the addicts, if any, were later rehabilitated. It is clear, however, that a significant number of individuals were impacted by the ban. It is also reasonable to infer that at least some of those individuals, like Lopez, were at one time addicted to drugs, but after participating in a drug rehabilitation program, were able to overcome their addiction,” Pregerson argued. He also asserted the district court erred in requiring statistical evidence to support the disparate impact claim. While statistical evidence is generally required to show disparate impact under, for example, the ADEA, such evidence is not required for similar claims under the ADA. Furthermore, the dissent noted, “it is manifestly unreasonable to require statistical data regarding the number of recovering addicts either hired by an employer or screened out by the test. These figures are not kept by employers, and indeed such data likely could not be lawfully acquired.”

“I do not suggest that we now determine whether lifetime employment bars resulting from a positive drug test necessarily violate the ADA,” the dissent noted. Here, however, Pregerson was swayed by the unique nature and scope of the employer association in this case. “Where such a test is mandated by an employer who exercises singular control over an industry spanning the whole west coast of the United States, the potential impact of the policy is broad and pervasive.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/03/02/09-55698.pdf

Investigation by NYS State Comptroller DiNapoli’s Office results in former town employee pleading guilty to charges of embezzlement

Investigation by NYS State Comptroller DiNapoli’s Office results in former town employee pleading guilty to charges of embezzlement
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

The former bookkeeper for the Towns of Kinderhook and Greenport has pleaded guilty to all charges related to her theft of approximately $300,000 in public funds following an investigation by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli's office, the New York State Police and Columbia County District Attorney Beth Cozzolino.

Additional information concerning the investigation and prosecution of the bookkeeper is posted on the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/mar11/030111.htm
.

Even if a CBA's arbitration clause is broadly worded, a matter may be excluded from arbitration if the CBA's language clearly shows such an intent

Even if a CBA's arbitration clause is broadly worded, a matter may be excluded from arbitration if the CBA's language clearly shows such an intent
Matter of Massena Cent. School Dist. v Massena Confederated School Employees' Assn., NYSUT, AFL-CIO, 2011 NY Slip Op 01550, Appellate Division, Third Department

A school district employee, Eric Fetterly, was absent from his employment for 11 months after suffering a work-related injury.

When Fetterly returned to work, the School District told him that it had paid health insurance premiums on his behalf during his absence in error and asked for reimbursement. Ultimately the matter was submitted arbitration where the threshold issue was whether the health insurance dispute was arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement.

When arbitrator ruled that the matter was, indeed, subject to arbitration, the School District appealed seeking a court order vacating the arbitrator’s determination. Supreme Court granted the District’s petition on the ground that it exceeded a specific, enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power and the Employees’ Association appealed.

The Appellate Division said that “The threshold question of arbitrability is ordinarily a judicial determination, unless the agreement "'clearly and unmistakably'" provides otherwise,” citing Shearson v Sacharow, 91 NY2d 39.

The arbitration provision at issue, said the court, is limited and its “restrictive language cannot be read to manifest a clear and unmistakable intent to permit the arbitrator to enlarge the scope of arbitration in the guise of interpretation.” As the CBA explicitly forbids the arbitrator from "supplement[ing], enlarg[ing], diminish[ing], or alter[ing] the scope of [its] meaning," the Appellate Division said that “in order to determine whether the arbitrator exceeded his power in interpreting the exclusionary language, this Court must exercise its threshold responsibility to determine independently whether the dispute is arbitrable.”

Finding that the collective bargaining agreement provided that “not all grievances are arbitrable, prohibits the arbitrator from addressing issues outside his or her authority or enlarging the scope of the CBA, and specifically excludes "the subject of health insurance" from arbitration, the Appellate Division concluded that “it is evident that the parties did not intend to arbitrate this dispute” and affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling vacating the arbitrator’s determination.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01550.htm
.

Professional consultants are employees and not independent contractors

Professional consultants are employees and not independent contractors
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Matter of Wells v. Commissioner of Labor, 77 AD3d 993, is an interesting unemployment case. Applying the right to control test, the court held that professional consultants were employees, reasoning:

Initially, we note that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]; Matter of Brevis Music Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 712 [2008]). Where professionals are involved, the relevant inquiry is "whether the purported employer retains overall control of important aspects of the services performed" (Matter of Piano School of N.Y. City [Commissioner of Labor], 71 AD3d 1358, 1359 [2010]; see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d at 736;Matter of Parisi [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 456, 457 [2008]).

In the instant case, it was established that claimant contacted Madison after hearing about the position from another consultant and that Madison conducted an interview to ascertain if claimant was suited for the job. Madison, in turn, sent claimant a written contract setting his compensation at $350 per day and referred him to the client who performed a background check, provided training and directed his daily work activities.

Under the terms of the contract, claimant was precluded from otherwise working for Madison's client companies or partners during the term of the assignment and for one year thereafter, was subject to client confidentiality agreements and was entitled to reimbursement of certain business expenses. In order to obtain payment, claimant was required to complete a time sheet provided by Madison to be submitted at times it directed. In addition, although Madison did not provide formal training, it supplied claimant with informational booklets on its clients' policies and procedures, had a representative conduct site visits to periodically meet with the consultants and responded to client complaints about consultants' work.

This Court has acknowledged that "'an organization which screens the services of professionals, pays them at a set rate and then offers their services to clients exercises sufficient control to create an employment relationship'" (Matter of Singh [Thomas A. Sirianni, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 43 AD3d 498, 499 [2007], quoting Matter of Kimberg [Hudacs], 188 AD2d 781, 781 [1992]; see Matter of Atelek [Head Hunters Hair Design — Commissioner of Labor], 278 AD2d 560, 560 [2000]). The record reveals that Madison did more than this, as indicated by its interaction with the consultants, responsibility for their work and the terms of the written contract. The fact that the contract was entitled an "Independent Consultant Agreement" is not dispositive (see Matter of Kaplan [Tupperware Distrib. — Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 951, 952 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 920 [1999]).

Accordingly, as substantial evidence supports the Board's decisions, we decline to disturb them, notwithstanding evidence in the record that would support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of DeSantis [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 1103, 1104-1105 [2008]).

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Agency’s use of its non-punitive procedure not a prerequisite to disciplinary action

Agency’s use of its non-punitive procedure not a prerequisite to disciplinary action
Matter of Van Osten v Horn, 37 AD3d 317

The Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections terminated correction officer Michele Van Osten’s employment after finding her guilty of disciplinary charges that her absences from work were excessive and inadequately explained, and that she was unable to perform the full range of her duties as a corrections officer.

One of the arguments advanced by Van Osten was that the Department could not bring formal disciplinary proceedings against her because it had not earlier provided her with the “informal, non-punitive mechanism adopted by [the] Department to address certain employee misconduct.”

The Appellate Division ruled that fact that such an informal, non-punitive mechanism had been adopted by Department [sometimes referred to as "progresssive discipline"] and could be utilized by the Department at its discretion did not limit its prerogative to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings against an employee pursuant to the Civil Service Law without first using its informal procedure.

As to the penalty imposed, termination, the court said that “Under the circumstances, termination is not a sanction shocking to our sense of fairness,” citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/discipline-not-barred-by-availability.html


=======================
The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State is a 1272 page e-book available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/ for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.
=======================
.

Public policy favoring collective bargaining of the terms and conditions of employment may be truncated by a competing public policy

Public policy favoring collective bargaining of the terms and conditions of employment may be truncated by a competing public policy
Matter of City of Middletown v City of Middletown Police Benevolent Assn., 2011 NY Slip Op 01400, Appellate Division, Third Department

The City of Middletown Police Benevolent Association ( PBA) and the City were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that had expired. The parties reached an impasse in the course of negotiating a new agreement and the PBA submitted filed a petition with the Public Employment Relations Board ( PERB) seeking the compulsory interest arbitration of several subjects, including a disciplinary procedure proposal, a bill of rights proposal and a proposal concerning procedure under General Municipal Law §207-c.

The City then filed an improper practice charge with PERB claiming, among other things, that the demands submitted by the PBA were not mandatory subjects of negotiation.

PERB ultimately held that the proposals for a bill of rights and disciplinary procedure — both of which involve police disciplinary matters — were prohibited subjects of negotiations, but “created an exception from this general prohibition of collective bargaining for honorably discharged veterans and volunteer firefighters.”

Concluding that collective bargaining over police disciplinary matters was prohibited, without exception, Supreme Court found that PERB's decision was affected by an error of law and granted the City’s petition challenging PERB’s ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s holding, explaining that “Although strong state public policy favors collective bargaining, there exists a "competing policy … favoring strong disciplinary authority for those in charge of police forces," citing Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 6 NY3d 563.

The Appellate Division said that "legislation specifically commits police discipline to the discretion of local officials . . . the policy favoring [local] control over the police prevails, and collective bargaining over disciplinary matters is prohibited." As the issue here concerned the relative weight to be given to competing policies, rather than the application of the Taylor Law to particular facts, Appellate Division said that “no deference is accorded to PERB's determination.”

Noting that the Middletown City Charter grants the Board of Police Commissioners the power to "enact, modify and repeal orders, rules and regulations for the . . . discipline of the police department" and "[t]o punish . . . any police officer of the city," these enactments "state the policy favoring management authority over police disciplinary matters in clear terms" and "express a policy so important that the policy favoring collective bargaining should give way."

As to PERB finding that such prohibition against collective bargaining does not apply to honorably discharged veterans and volunteer firefighters, the Appellate Division said that it agreed with Supreme Court “that PERB's determination in this regard was affected by an error of law and, therefore, cannot be upheld.” Specifically, the court decided that PERB's reliance on case law holding that the special protections granted to honorably discharged veterans and volunteer firefighters under Civil Service Law former §22 trump police disciplinary procedures set forth in a local charter was misplaced.*

The bottom line: the Appellate Division conclude that the discipline of Middletown’s police force, including honorably discharged veterans and volunteer firefighters, is not a permissible subject of collective bargaining.

* §22.1 of the Civil Service Law (Chapter 15 of the Laws of 1909, as amended), sets out procedures to be followed with respect to the “Removal of veterans and volunteer firemen” while §22.2 of such law sets out procedures with respect to the “Removal generally” of “officers and employees holding a position in the competitive class of the civil service of the state or any civil division or city thereof.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01400.htm
.

A court's review of a college’s or university’s disciplinary action against a student limited to whether it complied with its own rules in the process

A court's review of a college’s or university’s disciplinary action against a student limited to whether it complied with its own rules in the process
Matter of Hyman v Cornell Univ., 2011 NY Slip Op 01548, Appellate Division, Third Department

A Cornell faculty member alleged that a graduate student exchanged a series of e-mails. The faculty member told the student she should not contact him after the student suggested that they have a sexual affair.

When the student continued to send the faculty member e-mails, he told her that he that he would take formal action against petitioner if she persisted in communicating with him. Although the student agreed to discontinue communication, she subsequently e-mailed Cornell’s president, copying the faculty member, alleging that her "institutional rights" had been repeatedly violated by Department faculty.

The faculty member instituted proceedings against the graduate student and ultimately filed a complaint accusing her of harassment in violation of Cornell’s Code of Conduct.*

The graduate student than filed a complaint against the faculty member, accusing him of sexual harassment and retaliation. Ultimately the Cornell’s Hearing Board sent the student a written reprimand and issued a “no-contact order.”

The student sued, but Supreme Court dismissed her Article 78 petition. Subsequently the Appellate Division dismissed the student’s appeal of the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating that:

It is well settled that in reviewing a college’s or university's disciplinary determinations, "court[s] must determine 'whether the university substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings," citing Matter of Warner v Elmira Coll., 59 AD3d 909.

The court explained that only in the event the college or university “has not substantially complied with its own guidelines or its determination is not rationally based upon the evidence, the determination will be annulled as arbitrary and capricious.”

* Cornell’s Code of Conduct makes it a violation "[t]o intentionally harass another person by . . . acting toward that person in a manner [that] is . . . severely annoying . . . and beyond the scope of free speech."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01548.htm
.

Freedom of information and speech

Freedom of information and speech
Informal Opinions of the Attorney General: 2000-2

The basic principle underlying New York State’s Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] is that all public documents are subject to disclosure upon request unless such disclosure is specifically prohibited by law.

For example, the State’s Public Health Law, Mental Hygiene Law and Education Law prohibit the disclosure of certain documents or information to the public without specific authorization by a court.

FOIL, however, also lists a number of exemptions that authorizes, but does not require, the custodian of the document to withhold particular information or documents if, as a matter of discretion, it elects to do so. Similarly, the State’s Open Meetings Law requires that the public be allowed to attend all meetings held by a public entity, although the public may be excluded from executive sessions held by the entity.

Executive sessions may be held for limited purposes, however. These include sessions in which the body will discuss items that would imperil public safety if disclosed; result in the identification of law enforcement personnel or police informants; concern matters involving criminal investigations; discussions concerning pending legislation or Taylor Law negotiations; personnel matters involving a particular individual; certain economic issues and matters concerning examinations and tests.

Although discussions of matters considered in executive session may be withheld even if they are recorded, both FOIL and the Open Meetings Law require that any formal vote taken during an executive session be made a public record subject to FOIL together with a record of how each member of the body voted.

May a local legislative body adopt a resolution prohibiting a member of that body from disclosing matters discussed in an executive session held by that body? This was the question presented to the Attorney General by Gregory J. Amoroso, the City of Rome’s corporation counsel.

In response, the Attorney General noted the parallels between the exceptions allowed under FOIL and the purposes for which a public body may go into an executive session from which the public is barred. His conclusion:

A governing body of a municipality may withhold any records of discussions properly taking place during an executive session and, further, it may prohibit its members from revealing the content of such discussions to the public.

However, cautioned the Attorney General, while the decision to go into executive session is a matter of properly exercising discretion and nothing in either FOIL or the Open Meetings Law prohibits the barring of the disclosure the nature of the discussions conducted in executive session by a participant, all such prohibitions are subject to federal and state freedom of speech requirements.

The clear implication here: neither FOIL nor the Open Meetings Law will serve as a shield in the event a court determines that a limitation placed on revealing matters considered in executive session violates the individual’s constitutional right to free speech. Courts have typically found that limitations placed on a public officer or employee with respect to his or her disclosing matters of public interest violates the individual’s right of free speech.

In contrast, prohibiting an individual from publicly discussing subjects or governmental decisions or actions involving matters of a personal interest rather than a public interest does not violate the individual’s constitutionally protected right of free speech. As the U.S. Supreme Court indicated in Connick v Myers, 461 US 138, constitutional free speech rights are not implicated when only matters of a personal interest to the individual, in contrast to matters of public concern, are involved.
.

Vacating or modifying an arbitrator’s award

Vacating or modifying an arbitrator’s award
Matter of Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester, 2011 NY Slip Op 01482, Appellate Division, Second Department

Article 75 of the Civil Practice Rules provides that an arbitration award may be vacated by the courts upon a finding of:

a. Corruption, fraud or misconduct in obtaining the award; or

b. Partiality of the arbitrator, unless the award was by "confession;" or

c. The arbitrator exceed his or her authority or so imperfectly executed his or her power that no award as to the subject matter submitted was made; or

d. There was a failure to follow the procedures set out in Article 75.

An arbitrator's award may be modified only if there was a miscalculation of numbers or a mistake in the description of a person or thing; an award was made regarding some matter not submitted to the arbitrator for arbitration; or the award was "imperfect as to form" but not involving the merits of the controversy.

The Westchester case involved a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award. The Appellate Division set out the following guidelines with respect to judicial review of an arbitration award:

1. Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited.

2. An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.

3. An arbitrator's award should not be vacated for errors of law and fact committed by the arbitrator.

4. Courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice.

In this instance the court held that party seeking to vacate the arbitrator’s award “failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator committed misconduct, and that such misconduct prejudiced its rights or the integrity of the arbitration process.”

Further, said the Appellate Division, an arbitrator exceeds his or her power within the meaning of CPLR §7511(b)(1)(iii) "only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01482.htm
.

Administrative law judge denies employee’s attempt to convert a disciplinary hearing into a “disability proceeding”

Administrative law judge denies employee’s attempt to convert a disciplinary hearing into a “disability proceeding”
NYC Human Resources Administration v Krisilas, OATH Index #931/11

A clerical associate was charged with sleeping on duty, absence without leave, excessive lateness, and discourtesy to a supervisor. The employee’s attorney moved to dismiss the disciplinary charges and convert the matter to a disability proceeding, claiming his client suffered from a disability.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid Addison denied the motion, ruling that an employer's duty to accommodate an employee's disability is triggered by the employee's request for accommodation and is limited to disabilities known by the employer.

Here, said Judge Addison, the employee never told the agency he suffered from a disability for which he needed accommodation. Nor, said the judge, did the evidence establish that the employee's misconduct was caused by a disability.

The ALJ held that the disciplinary charges were proven in the course of the disciplinary hearing and recommended that the individual be terminated from his position.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-931.pdf
.

State Labor Department has proposed to incorporate by reference updates to OSHA standards into the State’s Public Employee OSHA regulations

State Labor Department has proposed to incorporate by reference updates to OSHA standards into the State’s Public Employee OSHA regulations
Source: New York State Register, March 2, 2011

On March 2, 2011 the State Register published a notice that the State Labor Department has proposed to incorporate by reference updates to OSHA standards into the State Public Employee Occupational Safety and Health Standards by amending its regulations. [See 12 NYCRR §800.3.]

The Department states that the amendment is necessary because Section 27-a(4)(a) of the Labor Law directs the Commissioner to adopt by rule, for the protection of the safety and health of public employees, all safety and health standards promulgated under the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and to promulgate and repeal such rules and regulations as may be necessary to conform to the standards established pursuant to that Act. This, says the Department, insures that public employees will be afforded the same safeguards in their workplaces as are granted to employees in the private sector.

The text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from Michael Paglialonga, New York State Department of Labor, State Office Campus, Building 12, Room 509, Albany, NY 12240, (518) 457-1938, email: michael.paglialonga@labor.ny.gov

Data, views or arguments may be submitted to Mr. Paglialonga.

Public comment will be received until 45 days after publication of this notice.
.

Settling a disciplinary action by agreeing to disciplinary probation

Settling a disciplinary action by agreeing to disciplinary probation
Matter of Campbell v State of New York, 37 AD3d 993

The New York State Office of Mental Health [OMH] filed disciplinary charges against Monica A. Campbell. Instead of proceeding with a disciplinary hearing, Campbell and her union, New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association [PBA] “settled” the matter by agreeing to have Campbell serve a “one-year disciplinary probationary period.”

The settlement agreement provided that:

Should Ms. Campbell commit any actions or omissions during this one-year period “which rise to the level of misconduct and/or incompetence” she will be terminated from [s]tate service without recourse to Article 8 [of the collective bargaining agreement].

The disciplinary grievance procedure set out in Article 8 provided for arbitration as the final step in a disciplinary action.

Ultimately OMH determined that Campbell was guilty misconduct while in “disciplinary probationary status” and terminated her employment. PBA appealed her termination and demanded arbitration. OMH refused to submit its decision to terminate Campbell to arbitration, contending that arbitration was not available under the terms of the disciplinary settlement agreement. PBA filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Section 7503 seeking a court order compelling arbitration.

Supreme Court found that the disciplinary settlement agreement did not exclude arbitration of the question of whether Campbell was guilty of misconduct and ordered arbitration. OMH appealed.

As the Appellate Division’s decision notes, it is well settled that a right to arbitration, like contract rights generally, may be waived or abandoned. The issue here, said the court, was whether the disciplinary settlement agreement entered into by the parties constituted a waiver of PBA’s right to submit Campbell’s dismissal to arbitration.

According to the record, the settlement agreement initially made Campbell a probationary employee for one year. This language, however, was amended at the request of PBA’s attorney and the phrase “disciplinary evaluation period” [DEP] was substituted in its place in order to “avoid impairment of Campbell's seniority and layoff rights.”

Noting that paragraph 9 of the PBA’s petition seeking to compel arbitration itself confirm that the parties understood that the DEP would be a probationary period, the Appellate Division said that “This clear meaning and understanding of the parties is in complete harmony with the meaning and use of DEPs in similar reported cases,” citing Matter of Miller v Coughlin, 59 NY2d 490, 493; and Matter of McGough v State of New York, 243 AD2d 983, 983-984 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 807, among others.

The court said the disciplinary settlement agreement specified the party that would determine whether there was subsequent misconduct by Campbell, – i.e., OMH. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, Campbell’s sole remedy was to challenge OMH’s determination that resulted in her termination pursuant to CPLR Article 78.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/disciplinary-probation.html

======================
The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State is a 1272 page e-book available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/ for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.
=======================
.

Analyzing out-of-title work grievances determinations

Analyzing out-of-title work grievances determinations
Steen v Governor’s Office of Employee Relations, 271 AD2d 738

Resolving out-of-title work disputes is not something courts typically do.

As the Appellate Division, citing Cove v Sise, 71 NY2d 910, noted in deciding the Steen case: “it is well settled that [a]dministrative determinations concerning position classifications are ... subject to only limited judicial review, and will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that they are wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis."

But, said the court, where, as here, the record lacks any rational basis upon which to conclude that petitioners are not doing out-of-title work courts will intervene.

In Steen v GOER, the Appellate Division overturned a determination by the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations because it found that in this instance the comparison of petitioners’ duties with the duties of a Treatment Team Leader is inapposite -- i.e., it was neither appropriate nor pertinent to do so.

Why? Because, said the court, [a]n employee need not be assigned the full range of duties of a higher salary grade to be performing out-of-title work. The Appellate Division pointed to Collins v GOER, and Kuppinger v GOER, 203 AD2d 664, as support for its ruling.

Nancy Steen had filed a grievance claiming that she and a number of co-workers were being required to perform out-of-title duties and asked that their positions be reclassified and reallocated to higher-grade positions in recognition of their assignments. After the grievance was denied at all steps of the grievance procedure, she sued.

Steen contended that she and her co-grievants were appointed to positions of Recreation Workers, SG-14, Recreation Therapists, SG-14 or Senior Recreation Therapists, (Filed Mar. 29, 2000.) SG-17 by Pilgrim State Hospital. Following Pilgrim’s instituting a new program known as the Buffalo Model, Steen contended that she and the other employees were given an in-house designation of Treatment Plan Coordinators and were assigned a specific number of patients. Steen’s basic claim: the creation of the in-house title Treatment Plan Coordinators was a subterfuge allowing Pilgrim to assign out-of-title work to them and that their new duties were consistent with the duties of a Treatment Team Leader, SG 25.

According to the Appellate Division, as Treatment Plan Coordinators, each petitioner was responsible for transcribing information from the patient’s chart to a treatment plan worksheet and also interviewing each patient and entering the information from the interview in the second section of the worksheet.

Thereafter, the treatment team met and developed the treatment plan. Steen and her co-workers were then required to conduct a review with respect to each patient after 90 days to evaluate the progress of each patient with respect to the goals and objectives in the plan devised from the worksheets.

The court’s conclusion: [t]he focus of the review should have been whether the duties are appropriate to petitioners’ titles.

Noting that the reviewing officer recognized that the duties at issue are not contained verbatim in the classification standard but concluded they were a logical extension of the responsibility of professional or para-professional members of the treatment team, the court annulled GOER’s ruling denying Steen’s grievance.

Finding that there was no support for the reviewing officer’s conclusion in the record, the Appellate Division decided that the determination did not have a rational basis.

Further, the court specifically commented that a review of a patient’s entire chart containing information from each discipline represented by the team and the interview of the patient is simply not a logical extension of petitioners’ responsibilities to fill out forms and reports concerning patients in their recreational programs.
.

Governor Cuomo proposes legislation providing for a statewide, objective teacher evaluation system, based on both performance and seniority

Governor Cuomo proposes legislation providing for a statewide, objective teacher evaluation system, based on both performance and seniority
Source: Office of the Governor

On March 2, 2011, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that he will be submitting a program bill that would expedite and expand ongoing plans to implement a statewide, objective teacher evaluation system, based on both performance and seniority, for school districts to use when making employment decisions.

The Governor noted that both the State Senate and the State Assembly have acknowledged that the New York State must move forward on improving performance in the classroom as well as improving teacher evaluations. The real question, said the Governor, is what is the alternative to "last in, first out," the current statutory standard used in layoff situations involving personnel in both the classified service and the unclassified service.

The Governor said that the current so-called "last in, first out" policy “lacks objectivity by maintaining teachers simply based on years of service without factoring in classroom effectiveness, performance, or need.”

"It is time to move beyond the so-called 'last in, first out' system of relying exclusively on seniority," Governor Cuomo said. "However, we need a legitimate evaluation system to rely upon. This will help make a statewide evaluation system ready and allow us to replace 'last in, first out.'"

According to the Governor, his proposed program bill would "accelerate the new standards to cover all grades and subjects for the 2011-2012 school year." In addition, the Governor said that his bill would set clear standards and enhanced transparency requirements, including the posting of guidelines on all school districts' Web sites. Parameters of the new teacher evaluation system include a new rating system including "highly effective," "effective," "developing," or "ineffective."

The Governor’s announcement also states that the evaluations will also play a significant role in a wide array of employment decisions, including professional development, tenure determinations, selection for leadership opportunities, and termination. Teachers and principals with a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance could be charged with incompetence and considered for termination through an expedited hearing process.

=========================
The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the current relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click On http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.
=========================
.

Unfunded Mandate Relief [revised summary]

Unfunded Mandate Relief [revised summary]
Sources: NYSBA Municipal Law Section, Special Committee on Mandate Relief; Office of the Governor

On February 28, 2011 the New York State Bar Association’s Municipal Law Section’s Special Committee on Mandate Relief sent its comments* concerning the need for relief of certain mandates imposed on political subdivisions of the State, i.e., counties, cities, towns, villages and school districts, to the Governor’s Office.

The Governor’s Office reports that on March 2, 2011 Governor Cuomo accepted a preliminary report issued by the Mandate Relief Redesign Team** on ways to curb the proliferation of unfunded and underfunded mandates.

The Special Committee said that:

“Municipal officials have long been managing mandates handed down by the state government, whether the mandate is funded, under-funded or unfunded.1 As there is no uniformly accepted definition of what constitutes an “unfunded mandate,” there is no recognized, comprehensive inventory of the unfunded mandates that are placed on municipalities. Nevertheless, there are a number of laws and regulations that are universally recognized as such due to their prevalence and associated costs on municipal affairs.

“Some require that certain services or programs be offered to the public by the municipality for the benefit of the public at large. Others establish procedural or administrative parameters within which a municipality must operate, but do not provide any identifiable benefit to the municipality or the public at large. Often, this latter mandate category is designed to promote a legislatively determined public policy of the state, benefiting a narrow class of individuals, at the cost of the municipality. It is from this latter category of mandate that the need for fiscal relief is greatest”.

Noting that its comments “are not intended to question the validity or wisdom of the various public policies underlying mandates; rather, these comments are intended to identify those mandates that have the greatest impact on municipal expenses and to highlight the inequity of having municipalities bear the financial burden of carrying out these policies.”

The Special Committee addressed the following issues:

Disability Benefits for Law Enforcement and Firefighters (GML §§ 207-c; 207-a)

Public Pensions

Wicks Law (Gen. Mun. Law 101)

Prevailing Wage (Labor Law § 220)

Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law § 209-a.1(e)]


The Mandate Relief Redesign Team details findings in three key areas.

First, its report addresses reform and redesign the current system to stop the proliferation of unfunded mandates by:

1. Prohibiting New Unfunded Mandates: Permanently fix the problem of unfunded mandates by advancing a state law and eventual constitutional amendment prohibiting any new state mandate (with very limited exceptions) on local governments or school districts unless the state fully funds the mandate or the local entity votes to comply with the mandate;

2. Requiring Independent Cost Analysis of Mandates: Strengthen the currently ineffective fiscal impact statement process by requiring legislative fiscal committees to determine the need for and prepare such statements. This would involve codifying Executive Order 17's fiscal impact statement methodology and local government consultation requirements and making the reports available to the public; and

3. Enforcing Limits on Unfunded Mandates: Using existing resources, establish an Office of Mandate Reform to act as a clearinghouse that will work with local governments and state agencies to address unfunded mandates.

Second, its report addresses cost-drivers to provide meaningful mandate relief by:

1. Creating a Pension Tier 6: A new Tier will help municipalities and school districts address rapidly escalating pension costs; and

2. Avoiding the Wicks Requirement by Removing Barriers to Project Labor Agreements: In order to reduce the costs that localities and schools face due to Wicks, ease the burdens associated with project labor agreements (PLA) by eliminating the study requirement and developing regionally-negotiated PLA templates that together can reduce the costs of public works projects by 15 percent or more.

Third, its report addresses the current unsustainable burden of state mandates by:

1. Giving Local Governments Greater Flexibility to Administer Existing Mandates: The State Administrative Procedure Act (“SAPA”) §204-a should be streamlined and expanded to allow localities to propose alternatives to current regulations and to request waivers of regulations; and

2. Conducting a Comprehensive Review of All State Mandates: Conduct a full agency review and accounting of state and regulatory mandates that burden school districts and local governments.

* A complimentary copy of the Special Committee’s report is available from NYPPL. E-mail your request to publications@nycap.rr.com

** The Mandate Relief Redesign Team report is posted at: http://governor.ny.gov/assets/documents/finalmandate.pdf .
.
.

Hearing officer recommends termination of Emergency Medical Technician who made a false report after responding to a 911 call

Hearing officer recommends termination of Emergency Medical Technician who made a false report after responding to a 911 call
NYC Fire Department v Prosper, OATH Index #192/11

OATH Administrative Law Judge John Spooner found that an emergency medical technician failed to follow protocol and made false reports when he responded to a 911 call from an elderly man who reported difficulty breathing.

The EMT and his partner arrived at the patient's apartment and argued with the patient about which hospital to go to. The patient, however, refused treatment and the EMTs returned to the ambulance.

Rather than calling a supervisor for help, as required, the EMTs reported “10-90” or unfounded, to the dispatcher.

Believing that there had been no contact with the patient, the dispatcher sent firefighters to gain entry to the apartment. In the meantime, the patient came downstairs and told the EMTs that he was taking a bus to the hospital. The EMT gave firefighters no information about the patient and they entered the empty apartment by breaking the door lock

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-2885.pdf

Employer held liable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act for adverse action taken against an individual by supervisor

Employer held liable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act for adverse action taken against an individual by supervisor
Vincent E. Staub, Petitioner v. Proctor Hospital , USSC, No. 09-400, [March 1, 2011]

While employed by Proctor Hospital, Vincent Staub served as a member of the United States Army Reserve. As such, he was required to attend drills one weekend per month and to train full time for two to three weeks a year.

Both Janice Mulally, Staub's immediate supervisor, and Michael Korenchuk, Mulally's supervisor, were hostile to Staub's military obligations. Mulally scheduled Staub for additional shifts without notice so that he would " 'pa[y] back the department for everyone else having to bend over backwards to cover [his] schedule for the Reserves.’"

Mulally also informed Staub's co-worker, Leslie Sweborg, that Staub's "military duty had been a strain on th[e] department," and asked Sweborg to help her "get rid of him". Korenchuk referred to Staub's military obligations as "a b[u]nch of smoking and joking and [a] waste of taxpayers['] money”' "He was also aware that Mulally was "out to get" Staub.

The Supreme Court held that “if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate [adverse] employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA [Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994].”
.