Volunteer firefighter injured while engaged in the Fire District’s program to maintain his or her ability to perform his or her duties compensable under the Volunteer Firefighters' Benefits Law

Volunteer firefighter injured while engaged in the Fire District’s program to maintain his or her ability to perform his or her duties compensable under the Volunteer Firefighters' Benefits Law

All volunteer firefighters and emergency medical technicians in the Volunteer Fire District were informed that the swine flu vaccine was going to be provided for them at a designated clinic. One firefighter/EMT was refused the vaccine at that clinic but subsequently went to different clinic to receive her flu shot. Returning home, the firefighter/EMT was involved in a one-car accident that resulted in multiple injuries.

The individual filed a claim for benefits available pursuant to the Volunteer Firefighters Law and a hearing was held to determine whether her claim fell within the provisions of the Act. Ultimately, the Workers' Compensation Board determined that her injuries were incurred while she was engaged in an activity covered by the law and awarded her benefits. The District and its workers' compensation carrier appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, explaining: “[W]hether a given activity of a volunteer fire fighter falls within the line of duty is a question of statutory construction particularly within the Board's expertise.” In this instance the Board found that injuries suffered by the firefighter/EMT were compensable pursuant to Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law §5(1)(p).

§5(1)(p). covers individuals participating in a "supervised physical fitness class, group session or program for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the performance of their duties as firefighters, as well as necessary travel to and necessary travel from such activity."

Here, said the court, the record demonstrates that “the District, at the very least, strongly encouraged EMTs to receive the swine flu vaccination and made arrangements for them to receive the vaccine at no cost.” Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division found that the Board could reasonably conclude that individual's injuries were sustained pursuant to her participation in a program to maintain the performance of her duties and, thus, its determination was supported by substantial evidence

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03920.htm

Filing of an amicus brief with PERB

Filing of an amicus brief with PERB

Selected Rulings posted by PERB  – Matter of the County of Suffolk, Decision U-28610

The Board granted motions by the Police Conference of New York and the Suffolk County Police Conference to file amicus briefs* with respect to exceptions from an ALJ decision dismissing a charge alleging that the County of Suffolk violated §209-a.1(d) of the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act when it unilaterally transferred supervisory police duties previously performed on the Long Island Expressway and Sunrise Highway by the members of the Supervisor Officers’ Association of the Police Department of the County of Suffolk. 

* This decision reflects PERB’s view that an amicus brief may be valuable during consideration of pending exceptions. 

Failing to provide for the timely removal of a contested writing from an employee's personnel file or record is not fatal to filing §3020-a charges against the employee

Failing to provide for the timely removal of a contested writing from an employee's personnel file or record is not fatal to filing §3020-a charges against the employee

The arbitrator found a New York City school teacher guilty of various specifications filed against her pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law. The penalty imposed: a four months' suspension of employment without pay and benefits.

Supreme Court denied a New York City school teacher’s petition seeking to vacate a post-hearing arbitration award brought pursuant to Education Law §3020-a(5) and CPLR 7511, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In affirming the lower court’s ruling, the Appellate Division said that the arbitration award had been made in accord with due process and was not arbitrary and capricious, irrational, or lacking in evidentiary support, citing City School District v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917.

In response to the teacher’s challenge to the award on the theory that the New York City Department of Education [DOE] had failed to meet the time requirements set forth in Article 21(C)(3) of the collective bargaining agreement, the Appellate Division said the even if DOE had failed to comply with such time requirements “dismissal of the disciplinary charges against the educator was not required.

Article 21(C)(3), explained the court, “merely provides for the removal of a contested writing from an employee's personnel file or record in the event the procedural requirements of the Article are not followed.” Accordingly, such a defect “does not preclude the filing of formal disciplinary charges pursuant to Education Law §3020-a.”

Citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, the Appellate Division said that “The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness,” and dismissed the educator’s appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03879.htm

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

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State. A 1528 page e-book. For details click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

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

Terminated probationer not entitled to a pre-termination hearing

Terminated probationer not entitled to a pre-termination hearing

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court’s ruling dismissing an Article 78 petition filed by a former employee challenging his termination from his position during his probationary period.

In dismissing the former employee’s appeal the Appellate Division said that “It is well-settled that a probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, in the absence of any demonstration that the dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of law, citing Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758.

In this instance, said the court, evidence in the record regarding the individual’s unsatisfactory completion of his duties provide a rational basis for the employer’s determination, “particularly since petitioner received ample opportunity to improve.”

As there was nothing substantial in the former employee’s allegations purporting to show bad fait, the Appellate Davison held that no hearing was required and the petition was properly denied by Supreme Court.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03875.htm

 

NYC police officer forfeited his pension benefits following his removal from his position pursuant to Public Officers Law §30.1(e)

A police officer was one of five committee members responsible for receiving applications and making recommendations to the New York City Police Department [NYCPD] Contract Administration Unit regarding contract bids submitted by entities seeking to care for retired NYPD horses.

Among the specification was one that required that the facility consist of at least 30 acres. A friend of the police officer was one of the entities that submitted a bid. However, although the bid filed by the police officer’s friend claimed that the facility had 35 acres of land, it, in fact, it had only 19 acres. The police officer recommended that his friend’s facility be awarded a contract and ultimately the Contract Administration Unit awarded a contract in the amount of about $2.5 million to the police officer’s friend.

Both the police officer and the bidder were arrested and both pled guilty to one count of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree, a Class A misdemeanor. (Penal Law §175.30). As a result, the police officer was terminated from his position by operation of law pursuant to Public Officers Law §30.1(e), Justice Stallman held that the police officer was (1) not entitled to a pre-termination hearing nor (2) was he was eligible to retire and collect his pension.

In the words of Justice Stallman: [The police officer’] conviction by guilty plea automatically caused his office to become vacant because his crime constituted a violation of his oath of office. [The Police Commissioner’s] recognition of {the officer’s] automatic termination was neither arbitrary nor capricious, nor in violation of law

Addressing another aspect of the police officer’s loss of his pension benefits, Justice Stallman noted that “formal departmental disciplinary charges” had been filed against the police officer and that the officer and the Department had agreed to a "Negotiated Settlement" which stated, in pertinent part:

"I understand that if this Negotiated Settlement is approved by the Police Commissioner, the penalty against me will be as follows:

I shall forfeit all time, pay, and benefits for the period while under suspension … and agrees to immediately file for SERVICE RETIREMENT. Respondent will not file for SERVICE RETIREMENT unless and until this Negotiated Settlement is approved by the Police Commissioner ….”

The Negotiated Settlement also contained the following statement: "NOTE: THIS AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER.”

Although the NYPD Department Advocate recommended approval of the negotiated plea agreement, which was endorsed by the Department’s First Deputy Commissioner, the Police Commissioner disapproved the negotiated plea.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_22132.htm

Unilateral modification of a past practice

Unilateral modification of a past practice

Selected Rulings posted by PERB - Matter of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, Decision U-28706

PERB affirmed a decision of an ALJ finding that the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York violated §209-a.1(d) of the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act (Act) when it unilaterally modified a past practice by reducing the number of annual parking permits issued to Local 891-represented unit members, and by changing the method of distribution of the permits.

PERB held that free parking is a mandatory subject of negotiations because it is an economic benefit to the employees and that the distribution of parking permits is also mandatorily negotiable. It also affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that the District unilaterally reduced the number of parking permits issued to Local 891-represented unit members and changed the existing practice of distributing parking permits upon request to unit members.

Termination without notice or hearing by operation of law

Termination without notice or hearing by operation of law

Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed an Article 78 petition seeking to annul the termination of New York City Department of Corrections correction officer without notice or hearing or, in the alternative, an order compelling the Corrections Department to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

According to the decision, the correction officer had pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania to stalking, a first degree misdemeanor under Pennsylvania law. The Department of Corrections had terminated him pursuant to Public Officers Law §30(1)(e), deeming that the correction officer had been terminated “by operation of law” by reason of his conviction of the misdemeanor in Pennsylvania.

Public Officers Law §30(1)(e) provides that a public office automatically becomes vacant upon the officeholder's conviction of a felony, or a crime involving a violation of his or her oath of office.

The Appellate Division held that the correction officer’s Pennsylvania conviction involved a violation of his oath of office and thus his office automatically became vacant by operation of law pursuant to §30(1)(e), resulting in his lawful termination from his postion without notice and hearing.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03871.htm

Employer has the burden of proof that a disability prevents the employee from reasonably performing the functions and duties of the position

Employer has the burden of proof that a disability prevents the employee from reasonably performing the functions and duties of the position
Matter of New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 57 AD3d 1057

New York State Correction Officer Edward J. Rice suffered a heart attack that resulted in the implantation of stents and a defibrillator in his chest. Although Rice was cleared for duty without restriction by his cardiologist, Corrections placed him on involuntary leave until November 2005, at which time it terminated Rice's employment on the basis that he "ha[d] been continuously absent" and "unable to perform the duties of his position for more than one year" as a result of a disability pursuant to Civil Service Law §73.

Rice filed a complaint with the State’s Division of Human Rights (SDHR), alleging that Corrections had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice by terminating his employment due to a disability.

Although a SDHR Administrative Law Judge determined that Rice had failed to establish that he was fit to perform the essential duties of a correction officer and, thus, Corrections had not improperly terminated his employment, the Commissioner of Human Rights concluded that Corrections had, in fact, engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice by terminating Rice's employment.

The Commissioner awarded Rice back pay, as well as damages for emotional pain and suffering.

Corrections appealed, but the Appellate Division said that Corrections could not terminate Rice’s employment on the basis of his disability unless it proved that the disability prevented him from reasonably performing the functions and duties of a correction officer.

In support of the determination that Corrections had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice by terminating Rice's employment on the basis of his disability, SDHR relied upon, among other things, the reports of Rice's treating cardiologists, as well as the original report of the physician who performed an independent medical examination for petitioner, that Rice was capable of returning to work without any restriction.

In contrast, SDHR found that the reports of Correction's medical examiner that Rice was unable to function as a correction officer due to the possibility of a physical confrontation with an inmate damaging his defibrillator were insufficient to support the termination of his employment inasmuch as “the identified risk was speculative and hypothetical in nature.”

Finally, said the court, the fact that Rice's application for, and receipt of, Social Security disability insurance benefits subsequent to the termination of his employment does not, as a matter of law, preclude a finding that Corrections had unlawfully discriminated against Rice.

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_09517.htm

Characterizing a complaint as a violation of civil service rules does not avoid having to seek relief pursuant to the contract grievance procedure

Characterizing a complaint as a violation of civil service rules does not avoid having to seek relief pursuant to the contract grievance procedure
Montgomery County Deputy Sheriff's Assn., Inc. v County of Montgomery, 57 AD3d 1061

Cathy Anderson and Grace De Waal Malefyt each worked for a period of time in the title of "part-time" correction officer in Montgomery County. During their respective periods of employment in the title of part-time correction officer, both voluntarily and regularly “worked in excess of 20 hours per week and, in fact, in excess of 40 hours per week” without complaint nor did the Association ever file complaints on their behalf or sought to obtain additional compensation or benefits for them during this period.

Anderson and Waal Malefyt were appointed "full time" correction officers in 2000 and 2003 respectively.

In March 2004, the Association sued, seeking monetary relief in the form of retroactive benefits under the collective bargaining agreement. Supreme Court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

In addressing the Association’s appeal from the dismissal of its petition by Supreme Court, the Appellate Division ruled that “Having failed to avail themselves of the grievance procedures outlined under the very collective bargaining agreement on which they now rely for monetary relief, [Anderson and Waal Malefyt] and the Association failed to exhaust administrative remedies and are precluded from pursuing this action.”

The Appellate Division noted that in an effort to avoid the rejection of its appeal because of the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Anderson and Waal Malefyt and the Association try to disavow their reliance on the collective bargaining agreement by claiming that “they are not seeking to enforce the collective bargaining agreement but, rather, are alleging a violation of the County Civil Service Rules and Regulations.”

The court said that the petition filed in Supreme Court “belies this notion” as it clearly alleged that County defendants “have breached the terms of the collective bargaining agreement . . . in that they, as [j]oint [e]mployers, denied [p]laintiffs . . . benefits afforded by the collective bargaining agreement to full-time employees while holding the title of ‘[p]art-time [c]orrection [o]fficer’” and “denied the benefits contained in the collective bargaining agreement, including, but not limited to longevity, health insurance, vacation leave, holiday pay, sick leave, personal time, and increased wages.”

Thus, said the Appellate Division, it is clear that the true nature of this action is for breach of contract. Further, said the court, “even if we were to view the complaint as simply alleging a violation of the County Civil Service Rules and Regulations,” the result would be the same “as the monetary remedy for this perceived violation is still being sought under the auspices of the collective bargaining agreement, thus leading to the same result; namely, that [Anderson and Waal Malefyt] and the Association were still required to avail themselves of the grievance and arbitration procedures outlined under the agreement with the failure to do so being fatal to the requested relief.”

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_09519.htm

Custodian-helpers hired by Custodian-engineers employed by the NYC Department of Education are not “building service employees” within the meaning of the Labor Law

Custodian-helpers hired by Custodian-enginers employed by the NYC Department of Education are not “building service employees” within the meaning of the Labor Law
Brown v Liu, 2012 NY Slip Op 03567, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court dismissed an Article 78 petition seeking an investigation of wage complaints filed by certain members of Local 94 serving as "custodian-helpers" employed New York City Department of Education [DOE] "custodian-engineers.". The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division explained that as the union members involved served as “custodian-helpers,” they were not entitled to the prevailing wage and benefits protection under Labor Law Article 9.* Such is the case because under the "indirect system" of custodial care, the DOE employs custodian-engineers in accordance with civil service regulations. These custodian-engineers, in turn, may employ custodian-helpers.

Indeed, the relevant collective bargaining agreement for the custodian-engineers' provides that they are employees of the DOE. 

Thus, said the court, the custodian-engineers are not "contractors" and the custodian-helpers employed by them are not "building service employees" of DOE’s custodian-engineers as those terms are defined in Labor Law §230.

* Article 9 of the Labor Law is captioned “Prevailing Wage For Building Service Employees.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03567.htm

Legislative approval of a grievance settlement that does not change the terms and conditions of controlling Taylor Law contract is not required

Legislative approval of a grievance settlement that does not change the terms and conditions of controlling Taylor Law contract is not required
Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of Long Beach, Inc. v City of Long Beach, 57 AD3d 499

This litigation involved efforts by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association [PBA] to enforce three stipulations executed by the parties in settlement of three grievances initiated by the PBA pursuant to the terms of its collective bargaining agreement with the City of Long Beach. The three grievances initiated by the PBA on behalf of its members concerned sick leave retirement computations, night differential pay calculations, and a disciplinary action that had been brought against 17 of its members.

In response to the PBA’s inquiry concerning the City's compliance with the terms of one of the settlement agreements, the City indicated that it regarded all three underlying grievances as still pending. The reason offered by the City in support of its views: The City Council had never approved the settlements and thus they were not binding on the parties.

The PBA, seeking to enforce the terms of the stipulations and agreements, sued and won a decision by Supreme Court holding the stipulations and agreements were legally binding and enforceable as between the parties. The City was directed by Supreme Court to abide by the terms of the settlement agreements. Long Beach appealed, only to have the Appellate Division affirm the Supreme Court’s ruling.

As to the City’s claim that approval by the City Council was required to bind the parties, the Appellate Division said that the Court of Appeals in Board of Education for City School District of City of Buffalo v Buffalo Teachers Federation, 89 NY2d 370, made it clear that “the Taylor Law does not by its terms 'vary or extend the instances in which legislative approval is necessary and does not create a necessity for action by a legislative body where it does not otherwise exist.'" Here, said the court, Long Beach "has not identified any further legislative action that it must perform under the pertinent statutes" as a condition to the approval of the three stipulations settling the PBA’s grievances.

The Appellate Division also noted the past practice of the parties of executing similar stipulations resolving PBA grievances by the City Manager and the President of the PBA without any need for City Council ratification.

Further, the decision notes, the stipulations and agreements involved do not alter or amend the language of the controlling collective bargaining agreement so as to trigger the need for legislative approval. Rather, said the court, “they represented agreements between the parties on how they would interpret certain CBA provisions.” Therefore, “no City Council approval was needed in order for the stipulations and agreements to bind the parties.”

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_09573.htm

Public employees and the First Amendment right to free speech

Public employees and the First Amendment right to free speech
Thomas v City of Blanchard, 548 F.3d 1317

In considering a public employee’s claim that his or her First Amendment right to free speech has been compromised by his or her public employer, courts distinguish between the employee’s speech in terms of the vindication of a personal interest and the vindication of a public interest.

Another arena in which an employee may contend that his or her employer’s actions are violative of the employee’s free speech are tested in terms of whether the speech concerned the employee’s official duties or a public interest.

The latter was the issue in the Thomas case: Was Thomas’s report to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) made pursuant to his professional duties and therefore outside the scope of First Amendment protections within the meaning of Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, or was his speech a matter of public interest and thus protected by the First Amendment?

Ira Thomas was fired from his job as building code inspector for the City of Blanchard, Oklahoma, after he discovered a signed and completed certificate of occupancy for a home constructed by a local builder — who was also the mayor — in the City Clerk’s office although Thomas had neither made the final inspection of the home nor approved issuance of the certificate.

In the words of the Tenth Circuit, “Suspecting illegality, Mr. Thomas responded forcefully (and maybe even inappropriately; that is a disputed issue) by storming into a meeting to denounce the certificate, shouting at the City Clerk, threatening to report the matter to the OSBI and eventually following through on the threat.”

Subsequently terminated from his position, Thomas sued the City and various city officials, including the mayor, claiming his discharge was in retaliation for his exercising his right to free speech — primarily, his reporting the matter to the OSBI — and therefore in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

The Circuit Court decided that Thomas’s search was not made pursuant to his professional duties and thus was constitutionally protected. Citing its decision in Casey v. West Las Vegas Independent School District, 473 F.3d 1323, the court concluded that ala Casey, "Thomas was not satisfied that the city’s officials would report the fraud to the authorities, so he 'took his grievance elsewhere' — that is, to the OSBI.”

The court then considered a number of additional relevant issues including (1) whether the government’s interest outweighed the employee’s free speech rights and (2) whether the speech was a motivating factor in the discharge.

As to whether Thomas’s speech was a matter of public concern, the Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that although this issue was raised for the first time in this appeal, speech about possible illegality or pressure by the mayor would count as a matter of public concern.

Addressing whether city’s interest as employer in promoting the efficiency of the services it performs outweighs the employee’s interest in his speech, the court said that for the purposes of this test, the question is not whether the plaintiff’s speech was accompanied by disruptive behavior or made in a disruptive manner, but whether the government’s legitimate interests provide a sufficient justification for controlling Thomas’s message.

The decision also addresses other significant issues concerning the rights and limitations concerning the exercise of “free speech” by a public employee.

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/07/07-6197.pdf

Designating a beneficiary typically will result a reduction of the individual’s retirement allowance otherwise payable before such a designation

Designating a beneficiary typically will result a reduction of the individual’s retirement allowance otherwise payable before such a designation

A retired Chief of Department is entitled to a retirement allowance, consisting of both an annuity and a pension. In this instance the retired Chief of Department of the New York City Police Department, challenged Board of Trustees' interpretation of Administrative Code §13-249, claiming that the plain language of the statute entitled him to receive a pension equal to two-thirds of his salary unreduced by any optional modification.  

Although Supreme Court granting the retiree’s petition holding that that New York City Police Department’s failure to apply the plain language of Administrative Code of City of New York §13-249 to the calculation of retiree's retirement allowance was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the ruling “on the law” and dismissed proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78.

Administrative Code §13-249 provides that a retired Chief of Department is entitled to a retirement allowance consisting of both an annuity and a pension that will effectively make the retirement allowance equal to two-thirds of the retiree's salary.*

The Appellate Division said that the plain language of §13-249, states that a retiring Chief of Department's "accumulated deductions," are not subject to "any decrease resulting from withdrawals, loans, optional modifications . . .." The statute, however, is silent with respect to computations of the "pension" portion of the retirement allowance.

Accordingly, said the court, a retiring Chief's receiving the full two-thirds retirement allowance may be affected by his or her choice of options under Administrative Code §13-261 whereby “if any retiree exercises an option to designate a beneficiary to receive a portion of his retirement allowance, then his retirement allowance will be reduced accordingly.”

The Appellate Division then held that “no fair reading of Administrative Code §13-249 … leads to the conclusion that the ‘pension’ portion of [retiring Chief’s] retirement allowance would not be subject to a reduction based on the selection of an option in which a beneficiary is designated under Administrative Code §13-261.”

* Section 13-249 also provides instruction as to the computation of the "annuity portion" of the retirement allowance.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03723.htm

Court’s role in reviewing an arbitration award limited when the parties have agreed to submit the matter to arbitration

Court’s role in reviewing an arbitration award limited when the parties have agreed to submit the matter to arbitration

Arbitration between Albany Police Supervisor's Assn. and the City of Albany, 2012 NY Slip Op 03704, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Appellate Division affirmed a ruling by Supreme Court denying the Albany Police Supervisor’s Association’s CPLR Article 75 application to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award.

A member of the negotiating unit represented by the Association was served with disciplinary charges that eventually resulted in the termination of the member’s employment with the Albany Police Department.

Essentially the member was charged with allegedly failing to inform and misled superior officers about what had transpired with respect to an incident involving another Albany Police Department police officer. The arbitrator found the member guilty of nine of the 14 charges filed against him and concluded that his termination was the appropriate penalty.

In affirming the arbitration award the Appellate Division noted that "In circumstances when the parties agree to submit their dispute to an arbitrator, courts generally play a limited role," citing New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321 wherein the Court of Appeals said that "[A]n arbitrator's award should not be vacated for errors of law and fact committed by the arbitrator and the courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice."*

Here, said the court, the arbitrator's findings that member was untruthful when questioned by a superior officer concerning the event is supported by the record and did not result from the arbitrator grossly expanding the charges or other arbitral misconduct.

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the Appellate Division rejected the Association’s argument that the penalty was so disproportionate as to constitute arbitral misconduct as "unpersuasive.”

* A court may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power" (Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03704.htm

Employer’s reimbursement of Medicare Part B premiums is a "term and condition of employment" subject to mandatory negotiation

Employer’s reimbursement of Medicare Part B premiums is a "term and condition of employment" subject to mandatory negotiation

Chenango Forks Cent. School Dist. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2012 NY Slip Op 03700, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Chenango Forks Central School District distributed a memorandum to its faculty and staff represented by the Chenango Forks Teachers Association announcing that it would discontinue its longstanding practice of reimbursing retirees' Medicare Part B premiums.

While the relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the parties did not explicitly obligate the school district to make such reimbursements, it had done so since at least 1980 when such reimbursement was required by the Empire Plan, the health insurance plan provided to employees up until 1990.

In 1990 the parties entered into a new CBA, and health insurance coverage was changed to Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which did not require the reimbursement of Medicare Part B premiums. Chenango Forks, however, continued to make such reimbursements.

The Association filed a grievance alleging a violation of the CBA.* At the same time, the Association filed an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) alleging that Chenango Forks had violated Civil Service Law §209-a(1)(d) when it failed to negotiate the discontinuance of reimbursement of Medicare Part B premiums.**

PERB’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that school district's practice of reimbursement had "giv[en] rise to a reasonable expectation by current employees that they proceed under a promise of post-retirement [reimbursement]" and, thus, Chenango Forks’ unilateral decision to discontinue reimbursement violated its collective bargaining obligations under Civil Service Law §209-a(1)(d).

Ultimately PERB affirmed the ALJ's  conclusions regarding the school district's obligations under Civil Service Law §209-a(1)(d). The district filed an Article 78 challenging PERB's determination.

Rejecting the school district’s argument that reimbursement of Medicare Part B premiums is not a "term and condition of employment" subject to mandatory negotiation, the Appellate Division said that health benefits for current employees are a form of compensation, and thus a term of employment that is a mandatory subject of negotiation.

Although Civil Service Law §201(4) prohibits negotiation of certain retirement benefits, the Appellate Division pointed out that the continuation of health insurance payments to current employees after their retirement is not a retirement benefit within the meaning of that provision, citing Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 48 NY2d 398, 404 [1979]; Matter of Jefferson-Lewis-Hamilton-Herkimer-Oneida BOCES [JLHHO BOCES Professional Assn.], 219 AD2d 801, 802 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 812 [1996].

The court explained that such health insurance benefits, although paid after retirement, constitute a form of compensation earned by the employee while employed. Thus, noted the Appellate Division, as the Court of Appeals has held, and PERB rationally concluded, here that Chenango Forks "ha[d] a duty to negotiate with the bargaining representative of current employees regarding any change in a past practice affecting their own retirement health benefits," citing Matter of Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d at 332 [emphasis omitted]; see Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 48 NY2d at 404; Matter of Jefferson-Lewis-Hamilton-Herkimer-Oneida BOCES [JLHHO BOCES Professional Assn.], 219 AD2d at 802; Matter of Corinth Cent. School Dist. [Corinth Teachers Assn.], 77 AD2d 366, 367 [1980], lv denied 53 NY2d 602 [1981].

As to the question of whether a binding past practice was established, the Appellate Division said that the issue before PERB was whether, irrespective of any contractual obligation in the parties' CBA, a past practice of reimbursing retirees for Medicare Part B premiums was established such that Chenango Forks was barred from discontinuing that practice without prior negotiation with the Association.***

As to the merits of its past practice determination, the Appellate Division found that PERB had determined that there was a reasonable expectation by unit employees that they would receive reimbursement of Medicare Part B premiums upon their retirement, which finding was “supported by the stipulated facts that [the school district had] reimbursed Medicare Part B premiums to active employees and retirees since at least 1980 and that, despite the fact that the health insurance coverage provided under the CBAs subsequent to 1990 did not require such reimbursement, [the school district had] continued to do so until July 2003.”

Significantly, the Appellate Division said that it could not conclude that, by entering into a new CBA for the 2004-2007 period, which is silent regarding the reimbursement of Medicare Part B premiums, the Association waived its right to negotiate a change in [school district’s] practice of providing Medicare Part B reimbursement, explaining that. "A waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right with both knowledge of its existence and an intention to relinquish it . . . Such a waiver must be clear, unmistakable and without ambiguity."

As a final point, the Appellate Division stated that the “reimbursing active employees for Medicare Part B premiums does not constitute an improper gift of public funds (see NY Const, art VIII, § 1), as the reimbursements represent compensation earned by employees while employed and in consideration for a benefit furnished to [the school district].”

* A group of school district retirees also commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to annul the district's decision to discontinue Medicare Part B premium reimbursements (Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango Forks Cent. School Dist., 21 AD3d 1134 [2005]). This action wast remitted to Supreme Court for further record development to determine whether there had been a "corresponding diminution of benefits or contributions" effected by petitioner from active employees (Chapter 48 of the Laws of 2003; see Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango Forks Cent. School Dist., 21 AD3d at 1137-1138). The instant proceeding before the Appellate Division, in contrast, involved current, active employees of school district.

** PERB conditionally dismissed the charge subject to a motion to reopen the matter after the conclusion of the grievance procedure. When the grievance proceeded to arbitration, an arbitrator determined that petitioner was under no contractual obligation to continue the payments.

*** In contrast, the specific issue before the arbitrator was whether school district was under a contractual obligation to make Medicare Part B reimbursement payments to retirees.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03700.htm