Arbitrating the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement

Arbitrating the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement

City of Schenectady v Schenectady PBA, 289 AD2d 814

The applicable collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the City of Schenectady and the Schenectady PBA provided that “all police department employees ... will be provided retirement benefits based upon their average earnings during the 12-month period prior to his or her retirement pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Section 302.9(d).”

Section 302.9(d) applied only to Tier I employees at the time the CAB was executed. In 1999 Section 302.9(d) was amended to include both Tier I and Tier II members of the retirement system. When the City refused to extend the CBA “12-month period” benefit to its retiring Tier II police employees, the PBA grieved and demanded the issue be submitted to arbitration.

The City obtained a stay of arbitration on the ground that the dispute was not arbitrable. On appeal the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's ruling holding that there was no public policy or statutory bar to submitting the matter to an arbitrator for resolution.

The court pointed out the in determining whether or not a public sector negotiated contract grievance is subject to arbitration, a two-step analysis is used, citing Liverpool Central School District v United Liverpool Faculty Association, 42 NY2d 509, 513.

The first test: does the issue concern a subject that is arbitrable under the Taylor Law? The court said that as neither the City nor the PBA claimed that public policy prevents arbitration of this retirement issue, it only had to consider the second test: did the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question?

The standard to be applied by the court in evaluating the second test: is there a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA.

The PBA relied on the language in the CBA that provided that: Pursuant to the provisions of [Retirement and Social Security Law] Section 302.9(d) ... [the City] will provide retirement benefits based upon the average earnings during the twelve (12) month period prior to ... retirement.

The PBA argued that the City violated this provision when it refused to apply this provision to both Tier I and Tier II retiring members of its police department. The City, on the other hand, contended that the issue was not subject to arbitration as it never contemplated the provision would be applicable to Tier II members of the retirement system.

The Appellate Division found that “there is a decided relationship between the subject in dispute and the general subject of the CBA.”

Further, said the court, the City was, in effect, asking it “to interpret a substantive provisions of the CBA and find that the subject of the grievance could not have been contemplated by the parties at the time that they executed the CBA,” on the theory that the relevant provisions of Retirement and Social Security Law were not in existence at the time the CBA was negotiated and, “therefore, the benefits provided under that section were not and could not have been bargained for.”

This is exactly the type of interpretation of a CBA that the courts are told is the “kind of merit inquiry that [courts] are admonished not to engage in,” citing Committee of Interns and Residents v Dinkins, 86 NY2d 478.

The court rejected the City's contention that Retirement and Social Security Law Section 443(f-1) precludes the arbitration demanded by the PBA. Why? Because, said the Appellate Division, “[t]hat section provides that an unsuccessful demand for Retirement and Social Security Law Section 443(f) benefits, during collective bargaining negotiations, shall not be subject to compulsory interest arbitration as provided for in Civil Service Law Section 209(4).

Accordingly, the court decided that Section 443(f-1) does not address and, therefore, does not prohibit such issue from being raised, as here, in contractual grievance arbitration.

The Appellate Division came to the same conclusion in a case involving the same basic issue: City of Johnstown v Johnstown PBA, decided December 20, 2001.

Discovery of public employer’s electronic records in federal litigation

Discovery of public employer’s electronic records in federal litigation

Pritchard, et al v County of Erie and others, 546 F.3d 222

Pritchard obtained an order from a federal district court justice compelling Erie County to produce certain electronic communications – e-mails - between County officials and an attorney employed by the County. The County objected, claiming that these e-mails were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the district court’s order.

However, the Circuit Court then remanded the matter back to the lower court to consider another issue: “whether the privilege was otherwise waived.” Accordingly, the Circuit Court directed the lower court “to enter an interim order to protect the confidentiality of the disputed communications” until the issue of whether the privilege claimed by the County had been waived was decided.

United States District Court Justice Curtin had initially authorized the discovery of e-mailed communications, among other documents, that had been exchanged by an Assistant Erie County Attorney and County officials. The County characterized these e-mails as e-mails that “solicit, contain and discuss advice from attorney to client.”

In the words of the Second Circuit, Erie County’s petition “raises an issue of first impression: whether the attorney-client privilege protects communications that pass between a government lawyer having no policymaking authority and a public official, where those communications assess the legality of a policy and propose alternative policies in that light.”

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and counsel made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance. As the Supreme Court said in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383. at 389, “This permits attorneys and their clients to communicate fully and frankly and thereby to promote ‘broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.’”

In civil suits between private persons and government agencies, the attorney-client privilege protects most confidential communications between government counsel and the agency that are for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance.

The Circuit Court said that “Access to legal advice by officials responsible for formulating, implementing and monitoring governmental policy is fundamental to promot[ing] broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice,” again citing Upjohn.

In this instance, the Circuit Court decided that the e-mails in question were exchanged between the county officials and their county attorney for “the predominant purpose of soliciting or rendering legal advice." They convey to the public officials responsible for formulating, implementing and monitoring Erie County’s corrections policies, a lawyer’s assessment of Fourth Amendment requirements, and provide guidance in crafting and implementing alternative policies for compliance. This advice -- particularly when viewed in the context in which it was solicited and rendered--does not constitute “general policy or political advice” unprotected by the privilege.

The issue of privilege with respect to electronic communications and records kept in electronic form will probably be the subject of future litigation. Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rules 5.1, 16(b), 24, 26(a), 26(b)(2), 26(b)(5), 26(f), 33, 34(a), 34(b), 37(f), 45], and the Federal Rules of Evidence [Rules 404, 408, 606, 609], among others, took effect on December 1, 2006.

These amendments essentially address electronically stored information for the purpose of “discovery” in the course of litigation, including the obligation of the litigants to meet and confer about electronic discovery early in litigation and the discovery of information “electronically stored.” The new rules also require the parties to include information about electronically stored information in initial disclosures; the mandated early discovery-planning conference of counsel; the report to the court; and the pretrial scheduling conference with the judge. 

Depression may not qualify as a disability

Depression may not qualify as a disability

Aldrup v Caldera, 274 F.3d 282

William A. Aldrup complained that he was depressed and this constituted a disability under ADA. The reason for his depression: he had suffered stress and anxiety because of his having to work with certain employees.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Aldrup's claims, finding that he was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA because although he was unable to work only with particular co-workers at one particular job, he could work with other individuals at another work site.

Aldrup was a firefighter at a military installation, the Camp Bullis Fire Station. Because of a staffing shortage at another installation, Aldrup was assigned to the Fort Sam Houston Station -- about 20 miles away from Bullis -- for one day. He refused to report to Sam Houston.

He was charge with insubordination and dismissed from his position. Earlier he had been subjected to “progressive discipline” for other acts of insubordination.*

Clearly, the failure of a subordinate to follow a direct order of a supervisor is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for taking adverse employment action. Did Aldrup state a valid explanation of his insubordination by claiming that he suffered a disability involving a major life activity -- working?

The court decided that Aldrup had failed to offer evidence that he was substantially limited in the life activity of working and that he had failed to create a fact issue that his employer's proffered reason for his removal -- insubordination -- was pretextual.

Aldrup based his disability claim on his alleged depression resulting from “the stress and anxiety of having to work with certain employees at the [Houston Station].” This, said the court, was insufficient to demonstrate that Aldrup was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. His claim, “if supported by the record, would merely tend to show that he was unable to perform any job at one specific location, and is not evidence of Aldrup's general inability to perform a broad class of jobs.”

Aldrup also claimed that he was entitled to disobey his supervisor's order because it placed him in personal jeopardy. The court said that while a subordinate must obey an order first and complain later, there is an exception when obeying the order would place the subordinate in a clearly dangerous situation. The Circuit Court did not find any “clearly dangerous situation” present that would excuse Aldrup's misconduct in refusing to comply with his superior's directive.

The court's conclusion: based on the record, the decision to remove Aldrup was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

* In challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board's sustaining his dismissal, Aldrup alleged “mixed claims” -- i.e., claims based on discrimination as well as other grounds. The Circuit Court said that while it did not generally have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, it did have jurisdiction over this type of “mixed case,” citing Wiggins v US Postal Service, 653 F.2d 219.