Grievances reasonably related to the general subject matter of the CBA typically involve matters of contract interpretation and application to be determined by an arbitrator

Grievances reasonably related to the general subject matter of a CBA typically involve matters of contract interpretation and application to be determined by an arbitrator

Village of Garden City v Local 1588, Professional Firefighters Assn., 2015 NY Slip Op 07672, Appellate Division, Second Department

Local 1588, Professional Firefighters Association [Association] filed a grievance after the Village of Garden City [Village] laid off of members of the bargaining unit members and assign bargaining unit work to nonbargaining unit volunteers.  In response to the Association’s demand to submit the grievance to arbitration, the Village sought a court order to permanently stay arbitration on the ground that it retained absolute management rights to lay off employees and assign work under the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA]. The Association cross-moved compel arbitration, arguing that the CBA permitted arbitration of this dispute.

The Supreme Court denied the Village’s motion, finding that the parties had agreed in the CBA to arbitrate these issues, and that it was not against public policy to do so and granted the Association’s motion to compel arbitration. The Village appealed.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s ruling, explaining that the determination of whether a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable is subject to a “two-prong test."

First the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance. If there is no such prohibition, the court must then examine the CBA and determined if the parties did, in fact, agree to arbitrate the particular dispute.

Although the Village argued that the arbitration of layoffs of unit member firefighters is prohibited by public policy, the Appellate Division, citing NYC Transit Authority v Transportation Workers Union of America, 88 AD3d 887, said a dispute is not arbitrable if a court can conclude “without engaging in any extended factfinding or legal analysis” that a law "prohibit[s], in an absolute sense, [the] particular matters [to be] decided by arbitration.” Here, said the court, the Village failed to point to any law or public policy that would prohibit arbitration of the grievance.

As to the Association's claim that the Village had improperly assigned bargaining unit work to nonunion volunteers, the court observed that “the very issue as to arbitrability has already been decided” by it. The Appellate Division cited Professional Firefighters Association Local 1588 v Village of Garden City, 119 AD2d 803, explaining that by confirming an arbitration award which directed the Village “to cease and desist from assigning bargaining unit work to volunteers” it had implicitly acknowledged the arbitrability of that specific issue.

Finding that the grievances were reasonably related to the general subject matter of the CBA and, therefore, the Village’s management rights granted under Article XVII of the CBA and "the question of the scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA [are] a matter of contract interpretation and application reserved for the arbitrator."

Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to permanently stay arbitration and granted the Association's motion to compel arbitration.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_07672.htm

Absent the employer’s demonstrating its actions were motivated by legitimate business reasons, such actions may constitute an unfair labor practice

Absent the employer’s demonstrating its actions were motivated by legitimate business reasons, such actions may constitute an unfair labor practice

Hudson Val. Community Coll. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 07731, Appellate Division, Third Department

In this action the Appellate Division reviewed a challenge to the Public Employment Relations Board’s [PERB] finding that Hudson Valley Community College [Hudson Valley] committed an improper employer practice.

Hudson Valley Community College Non-Instructional Employees Union (NIEU) representing certain classified service staff members employed by Hudson Valley claimed that Hudson Valley agreed to pay overtime at a rate of time and a half for work performed by NIEU members in "second jobs" outside the scope of their regular employment duties.

A dispute arose as to a particular overtime payment and NIEU and Hudson Valley engaged in collective bargaining concerning overtime compensation for second jobs. Unable to reach agreement, Hudson Valley's director of human resources issued a memorandum announcing that Hudson Valley would no longer hire NIEU members for any second jobs and would instead retain non-NIEU members, such as faculty members and temporary staff, for such positions.

NIEU filed an improper practice charge against Hudson Valley with PERB and, following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge determined that Hudson Valley's decision not to hire NIEU members for second jobs constituted retaliation against NIEU for its advocacy in the underlying dispute in violation of Civil Service Law §209-a(1)(a) and (c). 

Ultimately PERB affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision and directed Hudson Valley, among other things, to rescind the director of human resources’ memorandum, restore NIEU members to the second jobs they had previously held and pay them back wages with interest. Hudson Valley appealed.

The Appellate Division said that in order to prove its claim that Hudson Valley had engaged in an improper practice, NIEU was required to establish that:

[1] NIEU was engaged in activities protected by the Taylor Law;

[2] Hudson Valley knew of these activities; and

[3] Hudson Valley took the challenged action because of such activities.

Further, explained the court, if the charging party proves a prima facie case of improper motivation, the burden of persuasion shifts to the party charged with the unfair labor practice to establish that its actions were motivated by legitimate business reasons.

Here the parties agreed that NIEU's advocacy on the overtime issue was a protected activity and that Hudson Valley was aware of NIEU's advocacy. Thus the issue to be determined was whether Hudson Valley's decision to stop hiring NIEU members for second jobs was improperly motivated.

Hudson Valley's director of human resources had testified that the parties became "fairly entrenched" in their positions on this and other disputed overtime issues. As a result Hudson Valley decided "to eliminate the problem by not having [second] jobs available." The director of human resources circulated a memorandum stating that "[b]ecause of the intransigence of NIEU leadership, [Hudson Valley] can no longer hire current classified staff members for any secondary functions, no matter how brief or infrequent, as this results in a demand for 'overtime' payment for any work beyond normal schedule." 

In his testimony the director of human resources said that his use of the word "intransigence" was not “anti-union animus” but, instead, he was attempting to ensure that Hudson Valley's supervisory staff did not blame the administration for the conflict.

The Appellate Division ruled that memorandum and the director of human resources' testimony constitute substantial evidence supporting PERB's determination that Hudson Valley made its decision to stop hiring NIEU members for second jobs because of NIEU's advocacy, shifting the burden to Hudson Valley to establish that it had valid economic reasons for its actions.

Considering economic reasons identified to support Hudson Valley’s decision, the Appellate Division said that there were specific examples of higher overtime rates being paid to employ NIEU members for some services provided. However, said the court, there was also testimony that non-NIEU members who replaced NIEU members in certain second jobs — such as faculty members who were hired to proctor examinations — were paid at a higher hourly rate than the overtime compensation that would have been paid to NIEU members and that the director of human resources acknowledged that non-NIEU members were hired even in instances when doing so was more expensive. *

The Appellate Division ruled that substantial evidence in the record supported PERB's determination that Hudson Valley did not meet its burden to establish that its actions were motivated by valid economic concerns and found that Hudson Valley had stopped hiring NIEU members for second jobs in retaliation for NIEU's advocacy on the overtime issue.

In response to Hudson Valley’s claim that PERB’s order could not be reasonably applied because some of the second jobs in question no longer existed and some NIEU members who previously held second jobs were now retired or had left Hudson Valley's employment, the court said that it could not consider this aspect of Hudson Valley’s argument as this was not part of the administrative record before PERB when it crafted its remedial order.

Accordingly the Appellate Division remitted the matter to PERB for a determination as to which NIEU members, if any, [1] can be reinstated to second jobs that they previously held and, or, [2]  receive back pay.

* At least one NIEU member who had been employed in a second job was paid a flat annual stipend that was unaffected by overtime rates, but nevertheless lost the position as a result of Hudson Valley’s decision.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_07731.htm

Governor Cuomo announces new administrative appointments

Governor Cuomo announces new administrative appointments

Source: Office of the Governor

On October 26, 2015 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced the following appointments and recommendations for appointment to the entities indicated.

Benjamin W. Lawsky has been recommended to the City of New Yorkfor appointment as Director of the Trust for Governor’s Island. Mr. Lawsky is currently the Chief Executive Officer of The Lawsky Group, a firm that specializes in helping companies, boards, and individuals manage their most complex, emergent and dynamic challenges. From 2011-2015, Mr. Lawsky was New York State’s Superintendent of Financial Services. Prior to serving as Superintendent of Financial Services, Mr. Lawsky was Governor Cuomo’s Chief of Staff, and before that a senior aide in the New York State Attorney General’s Office. Previously, Mr. Lawsky spent more than five years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. He began his career as Chief Counsel to Senator Charles Schumer on the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a Trial Attorney in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. Mr. Lawsky is a graduate of Columbia Collegeand Columbia Law School.

Josh Vlasto has been appointed as the Governor’s designee to the Cornell University Board of Trustees. Mr. Vlasto is currently a vice president at MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated. Mr. Vlasto previously served as Chief of Staff to Governor Cuomo and prior to that Deputy Communications Director. From 2004 to 2010, Mr. Vlasto worked for U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer, first as Legislative Aide for transportation and homeland security and then Press Secretary 2007 to 2010. Mr. Vlasto graduated from the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 2004.

Matthew Wing has been recommended to Empire State Development Corporation for appointment as Director of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation. Mr. Wing is currently the Northeast Communications Lead for Uber where he runs communications for its New Jersey, New York and Connecticut Markets. Prior to joining Uber, Wing served as Governor Cuomo's Press Secretary in his first term and as communications director for his re-election campaign in 2014. Prior to that he served as Communications Director and Deputy Advocate for Communications to then Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. He also briefly worked in the City Council, for the national labor federation Change to Win in support of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, in the New York Attorney General's Office under then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and was a Roth Fellow in the New York State Senate. He has a B.A. from Bard College.

Mark Colón has been appointed President and Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Housing Preservation at New York State Homes and Community Renewal (HCR), after having served as HCR's Deputy Counsel since 2008. Previously, Mr. Colon practiced law as an Associate at Dechert LLP and at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Mr. Colon has also clerked for the Honorable Julio M. Fuentes, Third Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals. He holds a B.A. from Hunter Collegeand a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was the Managing Editor of the Yale Law and Policy Review.

Nora Yates has been appointed Assistant Deputy Secretary for Human Services. Previously, Ms. Yates served as the Director of the Community, Opportunity & Reinvestment (“CORe”) initiative, which was launched by Governor Cuomo in his 2013 State of the State agenda to enhance the well-being of communities and ensure that all New Yorkers have the opportunity to thrive in a safe and stable community, from a supported childhood to a productive adulthood. Ms. Yates joined the administration as an Empire State Fellow in the Executive Chamber and before the Fellowship, she served as Executive Director of the Pride Centerof the Capital Region and Field Director for the Empire State Pride Agenda, in Albany. Ms. Yates earned an M.S. in Public Administration from Sage Graduate School, and an M.A. and B.A. from the University at Albany.

Benjamin Voce-Gardner has been appointed Assistant Secretary for Public Safety for the Executive Chamber. Previously, Mr. Voce-Gardner served as a Litigation Associate at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and as an Appellate Prosecutor in the United States Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps. While in the Navy, he also held positions as Law Clerk for the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and as a Trial Defense Attorney in San Diego. In 2008 he deployed to Baghdad, Iraqin support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mr. Voce-Gardner holds a J.D. from Boston College Law Schooland a B.A. from Connecticut College.

Colin Brennan has been appointed Press Officer for the Executive Chamber. Mr. Brennan previously worked as a Public Information Officer at the New York State Department of Health and Communications Manager at the New York State Thruway Authority. Mr. Brennan has a B.A. from the University at Albany.

Camonghne Felix has been appointed Speechwriter for the Executive Chamber. Ms. Felix has written for Teen Vogue since March 2015 and has been published by Huffington Post, Poetry Magazine and other publications. She's served as a mentor and facilitator for Urban World NYC since November 2014. Her previous experience includes work as a curriculum specialist with the Harlem Children’s Zone, work as a Campaign Lead at DoSomething.org, and as a research associate and speechwriter for the campaign of Assemblyman Michael Blake. Ms. Felix is pursuing an M.A. in Arts Politics from New York University.

Standards used by courts in evaluating the denial of a Freedom of Information request for public records

Standards used by courts in evaluating the denial of a Freedom of Information request for public records

Hearst Corp. v New York State Police, 2015 NY Slip Op 07729, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Hearst Corporation, publisher the Albany Times Union and one of its reporters,  Brendon Lyons, [Hearst] submitted a request to the NYS Division of State Police [DSP] pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] for the disclosure of all records relating to an alleged hit-and-run incident committed by an off-duty State Trooper.

  

DSP denied the request and after Hearst had exhausted its administrative remedies it filed a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment directing DSP to turn over the requested records, as well as costs and counsel fees.

Following the resolution of some procedural issues Supreme Court held a hearing at which DSP’s FOIL officer, by affidavit, set out the categories of records pertaining to the alleged incident, all of which, according to him, were collected or produced in an internal investigation by DSP pursuant to 9 NYCRR 479, Disciplinary Action.

Supreme Court did not review these records in camera* but found that all of the identified records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law §50-a (1) and dismissed the petition on that basis. Hearst appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division set out the following standards regarding a public agency’s response to a FOIL request:

1. "[P]ursuant to FOIL's general mission, which is to promote open government and public accountability, a government agency must make its records available to the public unless an exemption expressly provides otherwise."**

2. "[E]xemptions are to be narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government" and, thus, the party opposing disclosure bears the burden of establishing that the requested information "fall[s] squarely within a statutory exemption."

Noting that Civil Rights Law §50-a (1) exempts from disclosure the "personnel records" of police officers that are "used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion," the Appellate Division rejected Hearst’s contention that information created or collected pursuant to a misconduct investigation is not protected by Civil Rights Law §50-a(1) unless agency can establish that it was thereafter actually relied on in a decision-making process related to the relevant officer's continued employment or promotion and “[p]roof that information was generated for the purpose of assessing an employee's alleged misconduct brings that information within the protection of Civil Rights Law §50-a(1).”

However, the Appellate Division continued, because uncontested evidence established that DSP’s investigation of the Trooper continued after he had resigned as an employee of DSP, the court said it agreed with Hearst that police departments who investigate persons who are no longer their employees are not conducting investigations of "personnel" within the meaning of Civil Rights Law §50-a(1).

The plain meaning of the word personnel identifies individuals with some current employment relationship with an organization, as confirmed by Civil Rights Law §50-a(1) as individuals who are not current employees cannot be considered for either "continued employment or promotion." The Appellate Division found that “Supreme Court erred in finding that [DSP met its burden of establishing that the materials resulting from its investigation after [the Trooper] had resigned were for the purpose of assessing his continued employment or promotion and that, as a result, Civil Rights Law §50-a(1) provided confidentiality to such materials.”

However, said the court, it was unable to address DSP’s alternative arguments for affirmance of the Supreme Court’s granting its motion to dismiss based on “additional exceptions to FOIL respectively apply to some or all of the requested information” as those materials are not within the record for the Appellate Division’s in camera review.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to Supreme Court for its consideration of such arguments after an in camera review of the materials identified by DSP related to Hearst’sFOIL request.

* The term “in camera” refers to a closed and private session of a court or some other tribunal. As used here, it refers to the review of the documents in question by the court in his or her chambers, the public being excluded from that proceeding.

** An individual is not required to submit a FOIL request as a condition precedent to obtaining public records where access is not barred by statute. A FOIL request is required only in the event the custodian of the public record[s] sought declines to “voluntarily” provide the information or record requested. In such cases the individual or organization is required to file a FOIL request to obtain the information. It should also be noted that there is no bar to providing information pursuant to a FOIL request, or otherwise, that falls within one or more of the exceptions that the custodian could rely upon in denying a FOIL request, in whole or in part, for the information or records demanded. Examples of New York statutes barring the release of a public record: Education Law, §1127 - Confidentiality of records and §33.13, Mental Hygiene Law - Clinical records; confidentiality of.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_07729.htm