A collective bargaining agreement may obligate the employer to paying certain legal expenses incurred by an employee in the negotiating unit

A collective bargaining agreement may obligate the employer to paying certain legal expenses incurred by an employee in the negotiating unit

Local 342, Long Is. Pub. Serv. Employees v Huntington, 2014 NY Slip Op 03271, Appellate Division, Second Department

Public Officers Law §18*permits a political or civil subdivision of the State whose governing body has agreed by the adoption of local law, by-law, resolution, rule or regulation to “confer the benefits of the section” upon its employees, and (ii) to be held liable for the costs incurred under these provisions including the defense and indemnification its officers and employees, other than the sheriff of any county or an independent contractor.

This provision may be triggered in any civil action or proceeding, state or federal, arising out of any alleged act or omission which occurred or allegedly occurred while the officer or employee was acting within the scope of his or her public employment or duties.

However, this duty to provide for a defense does not arise where such civil action or proceeding is brought by or on behalf of the public entity employing such employee.

As the Local 342 decision demonstrates, a political or subdivision of the State may also obligate itself to be liable for such costs by including such an obligation in a collective bargaining agreement.

An arbitrator determined that the Town of Huntington had breached a provision in a collective bargaining agreement by failing to pay certain legal fees on behalf of an employee in the collective bargaining unit.

The Appellate Division said that Supreme Court properly concluded that the arbitrator's determination did not clearly violate a strong public policy, was not totally or completely irrational, and did not manifestly exceed a specific, enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power.

The court explained that although the payment of a public employee's legal fees "would constitute an impermissible donation from the public purse in instances where there is no prior legal obligation on the part of the State or a municipality to provide reimbursement, the reimbursement is proper and considered additional remuneration where there is a prior legal obligation" to do so.

In this instance, said the Appellate Division, the relevant collective bargaining agreement expressly created a prior legal obligation on the part of the Town to pay the subject legal fees incurred by the individual.**

* Public Officers Law §17, provides for the defense and indemnification of officers and employees of the State as the employer by the State. .

** See Civil Service Law Section 204-a

.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_03271.htm
.

A public employer may impose restraints on First Amendment activities of its employees that are job-related that would be unconstitutional if applied to the public at large

A public employer may impose restraints on First Amendment activities of its employees that are job-related that would be unconstitutional if applied to the public at large

Santer v Board of Educ. of E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 2014 NY Slip Op 03189, Court of Appeals

Members of a teachers' union picketing on a public street in front of a district school) displayed picketing signs from their cars parked where parents were dropping their children off at school district’s Woodland School. East Meadow Union Free School District brought disciplinary charges for misconduct against certain teachers, alleging that the teachers had created a health and safety risk by parking their cars so that students had to be dropped off in the middle of the street instead of at curbside.

After their respective hearings, the arbitrators found the teachers guilty of the misconduct charge and imposed a fine as the penalty. The arbitrators, acknowledging that the parking demonstration was conducted on public property while teachers were off-duty, and that their cars were legally parked, nonetheless concluded that teachers "intended to (and did) disrupt the student drop off and that the parked cars created a health and safety risk to children who had to be dropped off in the middle of a busy street in the rain." The Court of Appeals noted that although it was "fortunate" that no child was injured, the arbitrators determined that fact was irrelevant to their findings that teachers’ intentional conduct posed a potential threat to student safety.

The teachers than sued, seeking to vacate the arbitration awards in which they were found guilty of misconduct, contending that the disciplinary proceedings commenced against them, and the discipline ultimately imposed them, a fine, violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Supreme Court denied the petitions but the Appellate Division reversed in each case. Applying the two-part balancing test from Pickering v Board of Educ. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will County Ill, 391 US 563,* the. Appellate Division decided that the teachers’ speech addressed a matter of public concern and, second, that the District failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that teachers' exercise of their free speech rights "so threatened the school's effective operation as to justify the imposition of discipline."

Although the Court of Appeals said it agreed with the Appellate Division with respect to the picketing demonstration, a form of "speech" protected by the First Amendment, addressed a matter of public concern, it disagreed with the Appellate Division’s conclusions with respect to the second step of the Pickering test and reversed the lower courts’ rulings.

The Court of Appeals said that viewing the record evidence in light of established federal precedent, it concluded that “the teachers' interests in engaging in constitutionally protected speech in the particular manner that was employed on the day in question were outweighed by the District's interests in safeguarding students and maintaining effective operations at Woodland.”

The school district, said the court, also satisfied its burden of proving that the discipline imposed here was justified because the teachers created a potential yet substantial risk to student safety and an actual disruption to school operations.

Addressing the Free Speech argument advanced by the teachers, the Court of Appeals said that “It is well settled that a public employer may not discharge or retaliate against an employee based on that employee's exercise of the right of free speech” but “Equally well settled, however, is that ‘the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general,’" citing Pickering,

Accordingly, said the court, public employers "may impose restraints on the First Amendment activities of its employees that are job-related even when such restraints would be unconstitutional if applied to the public at large." Thus, although "public employees like . . . teacher[s] do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door, . . . it is plain that those rights are somewhat diminished in public employment." Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, holding that the teachers’ demonstration constituted "speech" subject to First Amendment strictures, considered “that speech” in the context of the Pickeringbalancing test.

On the record, said the court, the teachers’ speech was on a matter of public concern and entitled to First Amendment protection. It then moved on the the “second test,” weighing the employee's First Amendment rights against the public employee's interest " in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees'.

The interests the District asserted: “ensuring the safety of its students and maintaining orderly operations at Woodland” are legitimate said the court. As the evidence at the hearings showed that the parking demonstration created dangerous traffic conditions in front of the school that could have injured a student and that caused actual disruption to the school's operations, the school district contented that this was sufficient to justify its discipline of the teachers and that it was not required to prove that a student was actually injured for the Pickering balance to tip in the District's favor.

The majority of the Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling, with costs and confirmed the arbitration award.

N.B. Justice Smith concurred but “only in the result, because [he did] not agree with the majority's view that the conduct of these teachers was speech or expression protected by the First Amendment,”  stating that he was “troubled by the implication that intentionally disruptive and dangerous conduct can, if it is designed for the purpose of calling attention to the actor's message, qualify for First Amendment protection.” In contrast, Justice Rivera dissented, stating that “I dissent from the majority's decision because I can find no legal or factual error in the Appellate Division's application of the Pickering balancing test to the facts of these cases. I would affirm the Appellate Division's orders and its conclusion that the District violated the teachers' free speech rights.”

* A summary of Pickering, “Essentials of the "Pickering Balancing Test” was posted earlier on NYPPL at http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/essentials-of-pickering-balancing-test.html

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_03189.htm
.

The State’s reduction of its employer contribution for health insurance premiums for judges was an unconstitutional diminution of judicial compensation

The State’s reduction of its employer contribution for health insurance premiums for judges was an unconstitutional diminution of judicial compensation
Bransten v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03214, Appellate Division, First Department

Sitting and retired members of the New York State Judiciary challenged the State’s recent decrease in its employer contribution to the cost of the judges' health insurance premiums, contending that it violated the Compensation Clause of the New York State Constitution which provides "compensation [of a judge] shall be established by law and shall not be diminished during the term of office for which he or she was elected or appointed."*

The Appellate Division agreed, finding that the reduced contribution, which in turn increased the amounts withheld from judicial salaries as employee contribution towards health insurance premiums, constitutes an unconstitutional diminution of judicial compensation.

The court explained that the reduction in the State’s employer contribution for health insurance premiums occurred in 2011 when the State, faced with a serious budget shortfall, threatened to lay off thousands of workers unless employees in State's several collective bargaining units made wage and benefit concessions that included bearing more of the cost of their health insurance premium.

The State Legislature in August 2011 amended Civil Service Law §167.8 to provide that “The president [of the Civil Service Commission], with the approval of the director of the budget, may extend the modified state cost of premium or subscription charges for employees or retirees** not subject to an agreement referenced above and shall promulgate the necessary rules or regulations to implement this provision.”

The President, with the State Budget Director's approval, then adopted a Regulation that reduced the State's contribution for health insurance premiums not only for employees in State’s several negotiating units that had agreed to the reductions through collective bargaining, but also for some “nonunionized employees” and retirees of the State as the employer.

In accordance with these new Regulations, in September 2011 the State notified judges that it would reduce its contribution to sitting judges' health insurance premiums by 6% and reduce its contributions to retired judges' health insurance premiums by 2%.

The State argued that the Compensation Clause does not prohibit the State from decreasing its contributions to the health insurance premiums because any reduction to judicial compensation was "indirect" and nondiscriminatory.

Supreme Court, however, found that the State's reduced contribution amounted to a direct diminution of judicial compensation because it increased the amount withheld from judicial salaries.

On appeal, the State did not contend that reducing its contribution for health insurance premiums did not directly diminish judges' compensation but rather that its contribution to judges' health insurance premiums is not "compensation" within the meaning of the Compensation Clause.

The Appellate Division rejected that argument, explaining “it is settled law that employees' compensation includes all things of value received from their employers, including wages, bonuses, and benefits” and the Appellate Division, Second Department has expressly found that “health insurance benefits are a component of a judge's compensation,” citing Roe v Board of Trustees of the Village of Bellport, 65 AD3d 1211.

In contrast to State employees who either consented to the State's reduced contribution in exchange for immunity from layoffs or were otherwise compensated by the State's promise of job security, the decision points out that judges were forced to make increased contributions to their health care insurance premiums without receiving any benefits in exchange. The Appellate Division noted that the judiciary “had no power to negotiate with the State with respect to the decrease in compensation,” and they “received no benefit from the no-layoffs promise because their terms of office were either statutorily or constitutionally mandated.” 

Thus, said the court, “§167.8 uniquely discriminates against judges because it imposes a financial burden on them for which they received no compensatory benefit.”***

Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the State’s motion to dismiss was properly denied by Supreme Court.

* New York State Constitution, Article VI, §25[a]. 

** With respect to retirees, prior to the 2011 amendment to Civil Service Law §167.8 it provided that employer contribution for health insurance premiums may be increased pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement but that such increase “shall not be applied during retirement.”

*** Much the same argument would apply to retirees of the State as the employer, including retired judges,  who retired prior to the effective date of the President’s Regulation as such retirees are not employees within the meaning of the Taylor Law nor did they receive any benefit with respect to job security as, like sitting judges, retirees cannot be “laid off.”

The Appellate Division's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_03214.htm

The Supreme Court's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_23175.htm
.

.

Attempt to obtain a "judicial reformation" of a provision in a collective bargaining agreement on the ground of "mutual mistake" fails

Attempt to obtain a "judicial reformation" of a provision in a collective bargaining agreement on the ground of "mutual mistake" fails

Source: NYMuniBlog

Attorneys James E. Beyerand Kate L. Hill of Harris Beach writing in NYMuniBlog summarized a Pennsylvania court decision, Matter of A.S. and R.S. v. Office of Dispute Resolution (Quakertown Community School District), that they characterize as “unequivocally a cautionary tale of contract law.” Their summary of the court's ruling is posted on the Internet at http://nymuniblog.com/lessons-in-diligence-reviewing-settlement-agreements-post-negotiation/

It appears that a Pennsylvania school district signed off on a settlement agreement in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) matter without reviewing a signed copy of the revised original agreement it received from the student’s parents. The parents had amended their copy of the settlement agreement before returning it to the school.

This came to light when parents submitted an invoice for reimbursement for educational services that had been denied during negotiations. The parents argued that the approval of the settlement agreement by the district was the result of the district’s negligence rather than fraud on the part of the parents.

The court agreed with the parents and explained that the district’s fatal error was failing to have its counsel review the agreement [as] the district could have easily discovered the changes if someone compared the two agreements.

Perhaps the classic New York Personnel Law decision illustrating the unintended consequence that may be visited on a party to a contract is the fall-out from a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by a city and its police officers' union. 

A contract provision -- referred to as the "207-c benefits" clause – in the agreement  provided that permanently disabled police officers injured in the line of duty would receive the same benefits provided firefighters receiving an accidental disability retirement allowance pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a.

In a nutshell, the disabled firefighter’s employer supplements his or her disability retirement allowance whereby the firefighter “shall continue to receive from the municipality or fire district by which he [or she] is employed, until such time as he [or she] shall have attained the mandatory service retirement age applicable to him [or her] or shall have attained the age or performed the period of service specified by applicable law for the termination of his [or her] service, the difference between the amounts received under such allowance or pension and the amount of his[or her] regular salary or wages." Such a salary supplementation is not available to permanently disabled police officer pursuant to GML §207-c.

According to the decision, the employer proposed to include language tracking the “disability” provisions of the General Municipal Law §207-c in the collective bargaining agreement and provided the union with a number of examples, including police contracts that cited GML §207-c as well as the employer's own agreement with its firefighters which cited GML §207-a. The proposed agreement with the police unit was prepared by the employer and included language providing police officers eligible for a GML §207-c benefit would be provided with the same benefit that a disabled firefighter eligible for a GML §207-a(2) salary supplement would receive.

Although the employer subsequently claimed it had discovered the "mistaken inclusion of this [§207-a] benefit" in 1966, the Appellate Division noted that “matters remained essentially dormant until February 4, 1997, when a disabled police officer applied for the supplemental [§207-a salary] payments provided under the parties' 207-c agreement.”

In response to the employer’s refusal to provide the police officer with this “contract benefit,” the union demanded that the matter be submitted to contract arbitration, whereupon the employer filed a petition seeking a judicial stay of the arbitration and for a "reformation of the 207-c agreement on the ground of mutual mistake."

The Appellate Division* ruled that the matter should submitted to arbitration.

Ultimately, the arbitrator, Howard A. Rubenstein, Esq., decided that the language used in the collective bargaining agreement controlled and thus the employer was required to provide its police officers disabled in the performance of their law enforcement duties the benefits provided firefighters mandated by General Municipal Law Section 207-a in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
NYPPL

* The Appellate Division's decision is summarized at http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/11/claim-of-mistake-does-not-permit-party.html