Education Law §310 may not be used to appeal an administrative decision made by an employee of the State Department of Education

Education Law §310 may not be used to appeal an administrative decision made by an employee of the State Department of Education

Advanced Therapy, OT, PT, SLP, ET AL PLLC, - An appeal from a decision by the New York State Education Department, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 16,446

Advanced Therapy, a provider of preschool education services, challenged a decision denying a program modification request that it alleged was made by a State Education Department employee.

The Commissioner dismissed Advanced Therapy’s appeal, explaining that “It is well settled that Education Law §310 does not authorize an appeal to the Commissioner from actions taken by members of the staff of the State Education Department “

Such decisions, said the Commissioner, may be challenged in a proceeding brought in a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume52/d16446.html

In order to be considered by an administrative tribunal, the evidence must be made available to the tribunal prior to its making a final determination

In order to be considered by an administrative tribunal, the evidence must be made available to the tribunal prior to its making a final determination
Cabonargi v City Univ. of N.Y., 2013 NY Slip Op 00129, Appellate Division, First Department

A doctoral program student dismissed from the City University of New York challenged the University’s decision. After considering “an email from student's academic advisor," Supreme Court granted the student’s petition and directed the University “to reconsider” its decision.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, on the law, explaining that Supreme Court improperly considered an email from the student's academic advisor as it was never presented at the administrative level.

Indeed, said the court, the e-mail considered by Supreme Court was issued after the University's “final determination.”

The Appellate Division noted that with respect to the evidence considered at the administrative level, the University's determination concerning the graduate student’s academic qualifications was rational, and was made in good faith and in accordance with its own rules.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_00129.htm

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances 

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances by Harvey Randall, Esq., is a 600+ page electronic handbook [e-book] for administrators, union officials, attorneys and others involved in disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees employed by New York State as the employer and its political subdivisions pursuant to the State's Civil Service Law, the Education Law, contract disciplinary grievance procedures negotiated pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Service Law [the Taylor Law] and other statutes, rules or regulations.

In his review of this e-book, St. John's Law School Adjunct Professor Mitchell H. Rubinstein states:

 ... another excellent book that all, and I mean all, lawyers, management representatives and union advocates who practice New York public sector labor and employment law will want to purchase ... Because the book is an e-book, like Mr. Randall's previous books, it can be be downloaded to your computer and then searched as a MS Word document. Labor management officials and attorneys will want this book because it is well researched and organized and simply a time saver. Quite frankly, there is no other book like this which discussed New York law in a complete and comprehensive fashion.

For additional information about this e-book, click on http://nypplarchives.blogspot.com

NYS Department of Civil Service has issued a revised “Agency Reduction Transfer Lists” procedure applicable to officers and employees of the State as the employer

NYS Department of Civil Service has issued a revised “Agency Reduction Transfer Lists” procedure applicable to officers and employees of the State as the employer

Source: New York State Department of Civil Service Policy Bulletin #13-01

N.B. Policy Bulletin #13-01 supersedes Policy Bulletin #04-01

The Department of Civil Service’s Policy Bulletin #13-01 states that §78 of the Civil Service Law permits the transfer of employees, without examination, "from one department or agency to another department or agency of the State where necessitated by reasons of economy, efficiency, consolidation or abolition of functions, curtailment of activities or otherwise." The Policy Bulletin also notes that the Agency Reduction Transfer Program is a “discretionary tool” to be used to realign the workforce to meet programmatic and/or fiscal needs. Participation is voluntary on the part of eligible employees.

Those eligible for the ARTL program include:

1. Permanent and contingent permanent competitive class employees and eligible permanent non-competitive class and labor class employees whose positions may be impacted as a result of an action taken by reason of economy, efficiency, consolidation, or abolition of functions, curtailment of activities or otherwise.

2. Permanent and contingent permanent competitive class employees and eligible permanent non-competitive and labor class employees whose positions are relocated to a different county, and decline reassignment.

Policy Bulletin #13-01 notes that an agency may, at its discretion, extend ARTL eligibility to other employees in the titles. However, whatever method an agency chooses to determine eligibility must be objective and consistent across titles, and based upon operational needs. The Civil Service Department may extend eligibility to permanent, non-tenured, non-competitive and labor class employees.

Among those ineligible for the ARTL Program are:

1. Exempt class employees

2. Non-competitive class employees serving in policy-influencing or confidential positions

3. Provisional employees

4. Temporary employees

5. Employees who decline reassignment within the same county

6. Employees impacted by the return of incumbent in accordance with §§4.11 and 4.12 of the Classified Service. (4 NYCRR section 4.11 and 4.12)

The Civil Service Department has posted the text of Policy Bulletin #13-01 on the Internet at:

http://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/pb13-01.pdf

Failing to comply with the notice requirements for filing a demand for arbitration set out in the collective bargaining agreement is a fatal procedural defect

Failing to comply with the notice requirements for filing a demand for arbitration set out in the collective bargaining agreement is a fatal procedural defect
In the Matter of the Arbitration between Livingston County and the Livingston County Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Inc., Local 1000, 2012 NY Slip Op 08985, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The County and Local 1000 of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. were involved in a grievance that was at the various steps set out in the CBA’s contract grievance procedure article. Ultimately the County denied the grievance by a written decision dated October 4, 2011. CSEA then advised the County by a letter dated October 27, 2011 that it intended to submit the grievance to arbitration. The County received CSEA’s letter on October 28, 2011.

The critical provision in the CBA central to this litigation required "[c]ompliance with the time limits for submitting a notice of intent to arbitrate [and such compliance] shall be a condition precedent to arbitration". The CBA also included a provision stating that "Failure to submit a notice of intent to submit a grievance to arbitration . . . shall thus bar the grievance from proceeding to arbitration."

The time limits set out in the CBA required that the party demanding arbitration must notify the other party of its intention to submit the matter to arbitration “no later than 15 working days after a written decision was issued at the second step of the grievance process.”

Livingston County asked Supreme Court to stay arbitration, contending that CSEA’s demand to submit the grievance to arbitration was untimely as it had not been notified of CSEA’s intent to do so within 15 working days of date of its denial of the grievance.

Supreme Court denied the County’s petition; the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court ruling “on the law.”

The Appellate Division explained that although the CBA between the parties sets out a “broad arbitration agreement,” it also contains an express provision establishing a condition precedent to submitting the matter to arbitration and CSEA had not complied with this condition precedent..

The court also noted that where such a condition precedent is expressly made part of the CBA, the issue of compliance with the condition is for the court to decide in the first instance.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08985.htm