Arbitration award addressing a related but different issue does not revive an otherwise untimely cause of action

Arbitration award addressing a related but different issue does not revive an otherwise untimely cause of action

Stembridge v New York City Dept. of Education, 2011 NY Slip Op 07519, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court dismissed Everett Stembridge’s petition alleging unlawful discrimination and wrongful termination as untimely, finding that Stembridge’s cause of action had accrued on August 15, 2006, when he was terminated from an Aspiring Principals program as he had not commenced this action until August 2009.  

Stembridge had argued that as a result of his prevailing in an arbitration held in 2009, which found that the New York City Department of Education could not recoup monies it had inadvertently paid to him following his termination from the program in August 2006.

The Appellate Division characterized this argument as “misplaced” as the 2009 arbitration did not create a new accrual date for the action alleging unlawful discrimination and, or, unlawful termination.

The court explained that the 2009 grievance “… did not deal with issues of either termination from the program or defendant's alleged discrimination, but only with whether there was a contractual basis for defendant to recoup the alleged overpayment.”

Accordingly, Stembridge could not rely on the 2009 arbitration determination for the purposes of claiming the present action, initiated in 2009, challenging his termination from to Aspiring Principals program in 2006 was timely filed nor that his ability to do so was revived by the Department’s seeking to recoup the monies it claimed that it had paid to him in error.

Seniority for the purposes of layoff set out in the Civil Service Law and the Education Law trump those set out in a collective bargaining agreement

Seniority for the purposes of layoff set out in the Civil Service Law and the Education Law trump those set out in a collective bargaining agreement

Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 100, 2011 NY Slip Op 07431, Appellate Division, Second Department

In 1999 the New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”), its subsidiary, the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (“MABSTOA”) and the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 (“TWU”), entered into a collective bargaining agreement that, in pertinent part, provided for “the commingling of personnel, including bus operators,” between NYCTA and MADSTO for the purposes of selecting job assignments within both entities. TWU created a consolidated “seniority list” for bus operators it represented working for NYCTA and MABSOTA.

When TWU was advised that due to a budget shortfall, staff reductions were required that would affect bus operators employed by NYCTA and MADSTO and that at-risk NYCTA bus operators, as civil service employees, would be laid off in civil service seniority order, and at-risk MABSTOA bus operators, who were not civil service employees would be laid off in order of seniority in title, as provided for in the CBA, TWU filed a contract interpretation grievance on behalf of bus operators in the units it represented alleging that the announced method for laying off bus operators violated the surface consolidation agreement and as a remedy, asked for a determination that the bus operators for each be laid off pursuant to the consolidated seniority list used for picking job assignments.

Ultimately NYCTA initiated an Article 75 proceeding to permanently stay the arbitration on the ground that the relief sought was prohibited by the statutory requirements set out in the Civil Service Law for conducting layoffs of employees in the classified service. The Supreme Court granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration of the grievance. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division explained that “In the public sector context, determining whether a grievance is arbitrable requires a court to first determine whether ‘there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance'" and if there is no prohibition against arbitration, then the court must determine "whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement."

NYCTA contended that the subject matter of the grievance was prohibited by law or public policy. In that regard, said the Appellate Division, a dispute is not arbitrable "if a court can conclude without engaging in any extended fact-finding or legal analysis' that a law prohibit[s], in an absolute sense, [the] particular matters [to be] decided' by arbitration."

The Appellate Division concluded that “assuming that the surface consolidation agreement affects how [NYCTA is] to conduct layoffs, the particular matter to be decided is prohibited, in an absolute sense, by Civil Service Law §80(1), which provides the sole manner by which an employer may lay off civil service employees in [the] competitive class,” citing Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 NY3d at 521).

Accordingly, layoffs within the title of bus operator in the NYCTA can only be made in inverse order of civil service seniority consistent with the mandates of Civil Service Law §80(1) and not by any other method such as the use of the consolidated seniority list. The Appellate Division concluded that "an arbitrator could not fashion a different remedy for this particular grievance that would not violate statutory requirements or public policy.”

This element – seniority for the purpose layoff – cannot be diminished or impaired by the terms of collective bargaining agreement as demonstrated by the Appellate Division’s decision in City of Plattsburgh v Local 788, 108 AD2d 1045.*

In the Plattsburgh case the issue concerned the application of a Taylor Law contract provision dealing with seniority in a layoff situation.

The collective bargaining agreement between Plattsburgh and the Union provided if there were to be demotions in connection with a layoff, the "date of hire" was to be used to determine an employee's seniority. However, the "date of hire" might not necessarily be the same date used to determine an individual's service for seniority purposes for layoff under State law, i.e., the individual's date of initial permanent appointment in public service.

For example, assume Employee A was provisionally appointed on January 1, and Employee B was provisionally appointed February 1, of the same year. Employee B, however, was permanently appointed on March 1 of the same year, while Employee A was permanently appointed a month later, on April 1.

Under the terms of the Local 788 collective bargaining agreement A would have greater seniority for layoff purposes than B. But §§80 and 80-a of the Civil Service Law provides that the date of an individual's most recent, uninterrupted "permanent appointment" determines his or her seniority for the purposes of layoff and so, under the law, B would have greater seniority than A.

These were the critical events in the Plattsburgh case. The City laid off Mousseau rather than another worker, Racine. While Mousseau, had been employed by the City for a longer period than Racine, Racine had received his permanent appointment before Mousseau was permanently appointed.

The Union grieved, contending that under the seniority provision in the collective bargaining agreement, Racine should have been laid off. The City, on the other hand, argued that Civil Service Law §80 controlled and thus Mousseau, rather than Racine, had to be laid off first. The Appellate Division ruled that Plattsburgh was entitled to an order barring submitting the Union’s grievance to arbitration. The Court said that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away.

Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.

As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v Civil Service Employees Ass'n, 8 N.Y.3d 513, “Once such an informed decision as to which positions are to be [abolished] is made, §80(1) obligates the employer to respect the seniority rights of its employees." The same it true with respect to layoffs of personnel in the unclassified service.

* Source The Anatomy of a Layoff by Harvey Randall, Esq., Municipal Lawyer, Summer 2009, Vol. 23, No. 2, published by the New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, NY 12207 © 2009 New York State Bar Association. Reprinted with permission.

Tenure by estoppel

Tenure by estoppel

Dembovich v Liberty CSD, App. Div., 296 AD2d 794 

The basic rule concerning granting tenure to a probationary teacher or administrator is that although a school board may reject a superintendent's recommendation to grant the probationer tenure, a school board may not grant a probationary employee tenure unless the superintendent recommends that it do so.

Under certain circumstances, however, the teacher may attain tenure by estoppel. As the court said in Pascal v Board of Education, 100 AD2d 622, tenure by estoppel results when a school board fails to take the action required by law to grant or deny tenure and, with its full knowledge and consent, permits a teacher to continue to teach beyond the expiration of his or her probationary period.

Consideration of these two propositions were elements in resolving the Dembovich case.

Shiri Dembovich was appointed as a teacher by the Liberty Central School District. Her appointment was subject to her satisfactorily completing a two-year probationary period that was to end August 31, 2000. By letter dated March 30, 2000, the Superintendent of Schools, Brian Howard, notified Dembovich he would not recommend her for tenure and that her employment would be terminated effective June 23, 2000. Dembovich asked for, and received, the reasons for Howard's decision not to recommend her for tenure.*

In September of 2000, Dembovich asked the superintendent to obtain a substitute "to fill in for her" until September 11. Howard immediately responded, informing her that she had been terminated effective June 23, 2000 and that she should not report for work.

Dembovich disagreed, claiming that the district had failed to provide her with the procedural rights to which she was entitled under Education Law §3031 and thus she had not been properly terminated from her position. In effect, Dembovich contended that she had attained tenure by estoppel because the district had not properly terminated her prior the end of her probationary period and she had "continued in service" beyond the end of her probationary period.

§3031 of the Education Law requires that the board of education review "all recommendations not to appoint a person on tenure." The individual is to be advised of the date on which the board will consider the recommendation at least 30 days prior to the date of the meeting. Another procedural requirement: the individual "may, not later than 21 days prior to such meeting" ask for a written statement setting out the reasons for the superintendent's recommendation and may file a response to such reasons "not later than 7 days prior to the day of the board meeting."

On September 8, 2000, the school's attorney wrote to Dembovich advising her that the school board would hold the required §3031 meeting to consider the superintendent's recommendation that she not be granted tenure on September 11 and would, on that date, adopt a resolution terminating her employment retroactive to August 31, 2000.

Dembovich sued the school district contending that it had unlawfully denied her the §3031 rights to which she was entitled. Supreme Court agreed. It annulled the district's resolution and directed it to comply the procedures set out in §3031. Liberty appealed.

After dismissing the district's technical arguments concerning the timeliness of Dembovich's filing her Article 78 action, the Appellate Division addressed the merits of her claims.

The arguments advanced by the parties in support of their respective positions:

1. Dembovich contended that September 8, 2000 letter violated §3031 because it only gave Dembovich three days notice rather than the required 30 days notice.

2. The district argued that its complying with the §3031 procedure is moot because it could not grant Dembovich tenure in the absence of the Superintendent's affirmative recommendation that it do so.

The Appellate Division disagreed with the district's position as to mootness, pointing out that §3031 is very specific as to the procedure that must be followed by a school board in the event a superintendent recommends against granting tenure to a probationary teacher and a school board must be comply with these statutory mandates.

The court, however, did not go so far as to hold that Dembovich had attained tenure by estoppel because she had not been "terminate" on or before August 31, 2002, presumably because the district "had not accepted" her services after that date. All the Appellate Division ordered was that the school board to follow the procedures set out in §3031.

What is the potential impact on a school district if it is found that it did not comply with the provisions set by §3031?

In Tucker v Bd. of Education SD #10, 189 AD2d 704, the court found that Tucker, a probationary teacher, was advised that she was to be denied tenure 22 days before her probationary period was to end. As a result, the court ruled that Tucker was entitled to an award of pay for each day the district's notice to her that she would not be granted tenure was late. In other words, Tucker was entitled to pay corresponding to the number of days for which she was not provided the statutory days of notice.

Implicit in the ruling is that in the event a probationary teacher is not provided with timely notice that he or she is to be denied tenure, the failure to provide such notice is not a fatal defect insofar as any defense to the individual’s claiming tenure by estoppel or by default is concerned, provided the teacher was given formal written notice of this decision by the appropriate party prior to expiration of his or her probationary period and receives payment for each day that the notice was "late."

By the same token, a probationary period termination does not have to take effect on or before the last day of the applicable probationary period.

In Mendez v Valenti, 101 AD2d 612, the Appellate Division held that retaining Mendez on the payroll until the end of payroll period for administrative convenience did not result in his attaining tenure in the position. The Court held that under the circumstances, keeping Mendez on the payroll was permissible in view of the fact that it was of a short duration; for "administrative convenience;" and he was provided with timely notice of his probationary termination prior to the end of his probationary period.

Stated another way, the appointing authority has until the last day of the individual's probationary period to decide whether to retain the employee, extend the employee's probationary period, or to terminate the employee from his or her position. Although the employee's removal from the payroll may occur after this date, the required notice of the termination delivered to the employee before the end of his or her probationary period is deemed timely notice of termination for the purposes of determining if the individual attained tenure by estoppel.

Addressing another variation concerning the individual's employment obligation in relation to his or her tenure status, in Yastion v Mills, 229 AD2 775, the Appellate Division held that a teacher may work on a year-to-year contractual basis and never acquire tenure even after three years of continuous service. The decision points out that Yastion's continued employment was contingent on the district's receiving federal funding to support the position and his annual employment contracts specifically indicated that "tenure does not apply to this position."

* It is well settled that a probationary teacher may be dismissed from his or her position at any time during the probationary period without notice and hearing provided that such termination is not for an unlawful reason.