Placing counseling memoranda in an individual’s personnel file does not constitute a disciplinary action for the purposes of Education Law §3020-a

Placing counseling memoranda in an individual’s personnel file does not constitute a disciplinary action for the purposes of Education Law §3020-a

Board of Educ. of Dundee Cent. School Dist. (Coleman), 2012 NY Slip Op 04849, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The Dundee Central School District filed two disciplinary charges, setting out 16 specifications against a teacher. The teacher asked the disciplinary hearing officer to dismiss six specifications on the ground that the conduct encompassed by those specifications had been the subject of counseling memoranda placed in teacher's personnel file. The memoranda had warned the teacher "of the serious consequences of any future incident[s] . . . ."

The Hearing Officer granted the teacher's motion, concluding that "it would be both improper and unfair under the just cause protocol to permit and entertain formal charges, identical in nature to those at issue in the foregoing counseling memoranda, [because], by all accounts, the matters have not repeated." Ultimately the hearing officer found the teacher guilty of certain specifications and imposed a penalty of a six-month suspension without pay "but with continued medical insurance benefits."

Dundee commenced this proceeding pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (5) and CPLR §7511 challenging the penalty, the continuation of health benefits during the period of the teacher’s suspension without pay and the dismissal of the six specifications. The district also contended that the penalty of a six-month suspension was "excessively lenient."

Supreme Court remanded the matter to the hearing officer, concluding that” the Hearing Officer erred in dismissing the six specifications and lacked statutory authority to direct [the school district] to pay for [the teacher’s] health insurance* during the period of suspension.”

The Hearing Officer subsequently sustained, in whole or in part, three of the six specifications, but he reimposed the same penalty, finding that the teacher had previously been disciplined for the conduct at issue in those specifications through the counseling memoranda, explaining that "[i]t would be inherently unfair and totally contrary to the just cause protocol to issue further discipline to the [teacher] for actions that were never repeated."

The school district then commenced a second proceeding pursuant to Education Law §3020-a and CPLR §7511 to vacate the Hearing Officer's decision to the extent that the Hearing Officer determined that the penalty of a six-month suspension was appropriate and failed to comply with the prior judgment. Supreme Court agreed and vacated the penalty and remitted the matter to a different hearing officer regarding only the issue of the penalty.

The Appellate Division affirmed each of the Supreme Court's.prior judgments.

With respect to the issue of the dismissal of certain of the specifications by the hearing officer, the Appellate Division said that “we conclude that the Hearing Officer's decision to grant the motion of [the teacher’s] to dismiss six of the specifications was arbitrary and capricious. The court pointed out that “It is well settled that counseling memoranda such as those placed in [the teacher’s] personnel file are not considered disciplinary actions, citing Holt v Board of Educ. of Webutuck Cent. School Dist., 52 NY2d 625. In Holt, said the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals specifically stated that such memoranda may "be used to support a formal charge of misconduct within three years of the occurrence which the evaluation addresses."

As to the issue of the hearing officer exceeding his authority, the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court “properly determined that the Hearing Officer exceeded his statutory authority in directing [the school district] to pay for [the teacher’s] health insurance benefits during the period of suspension. The court explained that "In recommending a penalty under [section] 3020-a of the Education Law, a hearing [officer] is limited to one of the penalties set forth in that section, i.e., a reprimand, a fine, suspension for a fixed time without pay or dismissal'" [emphasis in the decision].

As, said the court, “[an employer’s] contribution toward an employee's health insurance is a form of compensation … the Hearing Officer improperly imposed what amounted to ‘a penalty of suspension at reduced pay’” [emphasis supplied].

Addressing Supreme Court’s remanding the matter to a different hearing officer with respect to the issue of the penalty to be imposed, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court “properly determined that the Hearing Officer's decision on remittal to impose the same penalty was arbitrary and capricious inasmuch the Hearing Officer based his decision on an erroneous interpretation of the law”

Noting that the hearing officer refused to impose any additional penalty after sustaining some of the remitted six specifications based on his continuing belief that the counseling memoranda constituted a form of discipline, the Appellate Division again pointed out that “it is well established that counseling memoranda are not disciplinary measures under Education Law §3020-a” and that the hearing officer's conclusion that the teacher had previously been disciplined for the conduct encompassed by those specifications is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court concluded that Supreme Court had properly vacated the penalty imposed by the hearing officer and remitted the matter to a different hearing officer for imposition of a penalty.

* The court ordered the teacher to reimburse the Dundee Central School District for any such costs that had been previously paid by it of behalf of the teacher.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_04849.htm

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

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State. This more than 1500 page e-book is now available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.

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

New York City Transit Authority subject to local laws that do not interfere with its providing transportation

New York City Transit Authority subject to local laws that do not interfere with its providing transportation
Tang v New York City Tr. Auth., 55 AD3d 720

Kim Tang sued the NYC Transit Authority to recover damages for alleged retaliation by the Transit Authority in violation of the New York City Administrative Code barring unlawful discrimination.

Supreme Court dismissed Tang’s complaint based on the Authority’s claim that Public Authorities Law §1266(8) exempted it from all local laws affecting its activities and operations.

Tang appealed and the Appellate Division overturned the lower court’s ruling, holding that Section 1266(8) did not exempt the Authority from all local laws but only those laws "conflicting with [Title 11 of the Public Authorities Law] or any rule or regulation" of the Transit Authority.

Section 1266(8) authorizes the Authority to “do all things it deems necessary, convenient or desirable to manage, control and direct the maintenance and operation of transportation facilities, equipment or real property operated by or under contract, lease or other arrangement with the authority and its subsidiaries, and New York city transit authority and its subsidiaries.”

Citing Bogdan v New York City Tr. Auth., 2005 US Dist LEXIS 9317, the Appellate Division concluded that language of Section 1266(8) indicates the Legislature “did not intend to prohibit the application of all Local Laws to the [Transit Authority], but only such laws that interfered with the accomplishment of its transportation purposes."

As compliance with the provisions in the New York City Administrative Code against unlawful discrimination in employment would not interfere with the function and purpose of the Transit Authority, the court vacated the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Tang’s petition.

The full text of the decisions is set out on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07903.htm

 

Employee charged with being disrespectful to another

Employee charged with being disrespectful to another
Health & Hospitals Corp. (Metropolitan Hospital Center) v. McCaskey, OATH Index No. 2195/08

ALJ Faye Lewis recommended dismissal of a charge that a special officer was disrespectful to a doctor in a psychiatric emergency room when he remarked "You're trying to kill me today". The statement, made when the doctor brought three patients to the emergency room at one time, was essentially a complaint that the emergency room was overcrowded and understaffed.

Although the officer's "choice of language was not ideal," in the absence of any showing that the brief exchange disrupted hospital operations, misconduct was not established.

Questions concerning the prosecution of grievances and whether the compliant is grievable is for the arbitrator to resolve

Questions concerning the prosecution of grievances and whether the compliant is grievable is for the arbitrator to resolve
Hartsdale Fire Dist. v Greenburgh Uniform Firefighters Assn., Inc., Local 1586, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 55 AD3d 731

The collective bargaining agreement between the Hartsdale Fire District and the Greenburgh Uniform Firefighters Association contained a broad arbitration clause providing for the arbitration of disputes "concerning the meaning, application or interpretation of this Agreement, which remains unresolved after presentation to, and processing through the grievance procedure."

Hartsdale resisted the Association’s demand for arbitration, contending that (a) the underlying grievance was not subject to arbitration; that the Association had not satisfied the procedural steps with respect to the grievance procedure; and (3) that only a unit member, rather than the Association, could file a grievance and demand arbitration.

Supreme Court dismissed Hartsdale’s petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s holding.

The Appellate Division said that there was “a reasonable relationship between the subject the disputes, which involves the [Association’s] grievances over the [Hartdale’s] directives that the [Association’s] union members work and train in a fire-damaged firehouse before the firehouse was fully repaired, and the general subject the collective bargaining agreement.” Further, said the court, the CBA does not specifically exclude from arbitration the subject the grievances that concern public health and the safety of public employees. Accordingly, said the court, the question of the scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA is a contract interpretation and application reserved for the arbitrator.

As to Hartsdale’s claim that the Association failed to comply with a condition precedent before demanding arbitration, the Appellate Division pointed out that, in general, “disputes over the parties' adherence to the grievance procedure set forth in the parties' CBA is for the arbitrator to determine, not for the courts.”

Finally, said the Appellate Division, Hartdale’s claim that “grievances must be pursued only by individual employees, rather than by the [Association], especially in light of the [Association’s] contention that [Hartsdale] has a past practice of hearing grievances pursued solely by the [Association], is a matter for the arbitrator to resolve.”

As to Hartsdale’s representation that only the aggrieved employee could file a grievance, in general, making a decision to file a grievance typically is viewed as vested in the employee organization and not an individual member of the negotiating unit. Further, the Association argued that it “owned the right to go to arbitration” which is the traditional view in such situations.

In Hickey v Hempstead Union Free School District, 36 A.D.3d 760, the Appellate Division said that a union member generally has no individual rights under a collective bargaining agreement that he or she can enforce against an employer. In the absence of a contract provision stating otherwise, an employee may proceed directly against the employer only when the union fails in its duty of fair representation and "In order to establish a breach of the duty of fair representation, it is necessary to show that the union's refusal to demand that the grievance go to arbitration was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith."

As to the alleged “past practice” whereby only individuals filed grievances, it is unlikely that such a practice would be viewed as a union’s abandoning or forfeiting its right to file grievances and demand arbitration with respect to alleged violations of the collective bargaining agreement.

The full text of the Hartsdale decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07903.htm

The full text of the Hickey decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_00493.htm