Ratification of the proposed contract for staff in the professional service of the State University of New York represented by United University Professions announced

Ratification of the proposed contract for staff in the professional service of the State University of New York represented by United University Professions announced

On June 4, 2013, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and United University Professions (UUP) President Frederick Kowal announced the ratification of a collective bargaining agreement between the state and the union representing more than 35,000 SUNY employees in the professional service of the State University of New York.*

UUP members had been without a contract since 2011. The agreement won the approval of 77 percent of UUP members who cast ballots.

According to the State Budget Office, the agreement will save approximately $87 million in wages through a Deficit Reduction Program over the contract period. All changes to health benefits will save $99 million over the contract period.

Contract highlights:

· Zero percent General Salary Increases for the three years 2011-2013, and 2% General Salary Increase increases in 2014 and 2015.

· Deficit Reduction Program involving nine days.

· A two percentage point increase in the employee's health insurance premium contribution for employees earning less than $40,137, making the employee contribution 12% for individual coverage and 27% for dependent coverage.

· A six percentage point increase in the employee's health insurance premium contribution for employees earning $40,137 and above, making the employee contribution 16% for individual coverage and 31% for dependent coverage.

· Benefit design changes for use of out of network services in the Empire Plan, including deductible and coinsurance increases for out of network medical benefits.

· A health plan opt-out provision so employees can opt-out through a spouse/partner to a non-State health plan.

· Payments of $500, $500, and $250 to be awarded to employees by the Chancellor. UUP members receive no "step" increases or longevity payments but campus presidents may also make performance incentive lump sum payments of 0.5% annually (1% at end of the contract term).

* See Subdivision three of Section three hundred fifty-five-a of  the Education Law.

Misconduct conduct that results in the termination of employment may not necessarily constitute “disqualifying misconduct” for unemployment insurance benefit purposes

Misconduct conduct that results in the termination of employment may not necessarily constitute “disqualifying misconduct” for unemployment insurance benefit purposes
2013 NY Slip Op 03734, Appellate Division, Third Department

A Lieutenant with the Sheriff's Department was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 alleging misconduct, incompetence and insubordination.

One of misconduct charge resulted from an incident in which the Lieutenant was served with an order of protection obtained on ex parte* by his estranged wife. When two superior officers served the order of protection, which required that the Lieutenant surrender all firearms, he became upset, orally protested the surrender of his firearms and used profanity toward his superior officers. The Lieutenant eventually complied with the terms of the order of protection.

Found guilty of the disciplinary charged, the Lieutenant was terminated from his position. He challenged his termination but the Appellate Division sustained the penalty imposed [see 90 AD3d 1390).

At the time of his termination the Lieutenant applied for unemployment insurance benefits. Initially disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct, a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge concluded otherwise after a hearing and awarded him unemployment insurance benefits.

Finding that the Lieutenant’s termination did not result from disqualifying misconduct, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling.

The Lieutenant’s former employer appealed the Board’s decision but the Appellate Division sustained the Board’s decision.

The court explained that as the Lieutenant “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of misconduct at the Civil Service Law §75 hearing,” the Board was correct in applying the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel to the factual findings of the Hearing Officer. However, said the court, it was incumbent on the Board to draw its own conclusion as to whether such factual findings amounted to misconduct disqualifying the Lieutenant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.

Significantly, said the Appellate Division, "[t]he same conduct that leads to a claimant being discharged for cause may not necessarily rise to the level of misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes," citing Matter of Wright [City of Syracuse—Commissioner of Labor], 101 AD3d 1198 and its decision will be sustained if supported by substantial evidence.

In this instance the Board found that although the Lieutenant had used vulgar and intemperate language toward his superior officers, it concluded that, given the context of his conduct, it was not so egregious as to disqualify him from receiving benefits. The Board relied on evidence of claimant's marital problems and his lack of knowledge of the order of protection prior to being served with it. Furthermore, the superior officers testified that they were not directly threatened by Lieutenant and that the Lieutenant fully complied with the terms of the order of protection by timely surrendering his firearms.

The Appellate Division dismissed the employer’s appeal, holding that “… substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that [the Lieutenant] did not engage in disqualifying misconduct, despite the existence of substantial evidence supporting the contrary conclusion.”.

* An ex parte proceeding is one in which only one side is present and the other side absent or unrepresented:  

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_03734.htm

Benefits available to certain dependents of a volunteer firefighter who died in the line of duty

Benefits available to certain dependents of a volunteer firefighter who died in the line of duty

Dickinson v Cape Vincent Volunteer Fire Dept., 2013 NY Slip Op 03723, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Lt. Michael E. Neuner/Timothy Goff Memorial Death Benefit Program [see Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law §7(46)], provides, among other benefits available to dependents of volunteer firefighters killed in the line of duty, for payments “for the support of each parent or grandparent of the deceased if dependent upon the deceased at the time of the injury.” *

Marsha Dickinson, the mother of a volunteer firefighter who died in the line of duty,* applied for benefits for herself and the volunteer firefighter's younger brother, contending that they were "dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death."

The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately agreed, whereupon the employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed the Board’s determination.

The Appellate Division, noting that "The issue of dependency is a factual one for the Board to resolve and, if supported by substantial evidence, its decision will not be disturbed", affirmed the Board’s decision.

Noting that the record indicated that the volunteer firefighter lived with his mother, his stepfather and his younger brother and that the parents worked very little due to their physical limitations, and his brother, a high school student, worked part time at a grocery store and that the volunteer firefighter “was the primary breadwinner for the family,” the Appellate Division concluded that “Given these facts, the Board properly found ‘that the loss of . . . decedent's financial contribution had an adverse or detrimental effect on the claimant’ and decedent's brother thereby warranting an award of benefits.”

* $532 per week is payable during such dependency is payable pursuant to §7(46), but in no case may the aggregate amount payable under §7(46) exceed $887 per week.

** The volunteer firefighter was shot and killed by a patient in the course of his work as a volunteer firefighter/emergency medical technician.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_03723.htm