Arbitrator directs the reinstatement of employees laid off in violation of the “meet and confer” provision mandated by the collective bargaining agreement

Arbitrator directs the reinstatement of employees laid off in violation of the “meet and confer” provision mandated by the collective bargaining agreement

Matter of Certain Controversies Between Social Serv. Empls. Union, Local 371 v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08658, Appellate Division, First Department

Underlying this case is an arbitration award that ordered the City of New York[City] to reinstate laid-off employees with back pay.

The arbitrator found that the City had failed to comply with the "meet-and-confer" requirement of the relevant collective bargaining agreement [CBA]. This provision required that,  prior to any layoffs, the City meet and confer with the designated representatives of the appropriate employee organization or organizations, here Social Service Employees Union, Local 371 [Union], with the objective of considering feasible alternatives to all or part of the projected layoffs.

The Union filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking to confirm the arbitration award compelling the City to reinstate the employees to there former positions with back salary and benefits. The City, on the other hand, filed a petition seeking to vacate the award. Supreme Court confirmed the award, and the City appeal from that order to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division found that the arbitration award “merely compels the City to follow the procedure delineated in the citywide collective bargaining agreement” and was therefore properly confirmed the Supreme Court.

The court explained that the citywide CBA outlined various requirements the City must meet before laying off employees including providing the appropriate union or unions with notice of layoffs "not less than thirty days (30) before the effective dates of projected layoffs" and then the "designated representatives of the City” were to “meet and confer with the designated representatives of the appropriate union” to consider "feasible alternatives to all or part of such scheduled layoffs."

The Appellate Division said that this mandatory "meet-and-confer" provision was not a mere formality but set out a non-exhaustive list of potential "feasible alternatives" including:

"i. the transfer of employees to other agencies with retraining, if necessary, consistent with Civil Service law but without regard to the Civil Service title,

"ii. the use of Federal and State funds whenever possible to retain or re-employ employees scheduled for layoff,

"iii. the elimination or reduction of the amount of work contracted out to independent contractors, and

"iv. encouragement of early retirement and the expediting of the processing of retirement applications."

Significantly, the citywide CBA provides for dispute resolution by “final and binding” arbitration, whereby the arbitrator may direct "such relief as the arbitrator deems necessary and proper,” subject to "certain limitations and any applicable limitations of law."

Although it was conceded that City gave proper notice to the Union about the layoffs, the Unioncommenced arbitration in the City's Office of Collective Bargaining, alleging that the City terminated certain employees without satisfying the citywide CBA's meet-and-confer requirement. Although there actually was a meeting, the Appellate Division said that crux of the disagreement was that at the “meet and confer” meeting the City [1] did not offer any alternatives for the 18 employees to be laid off, [2] there were no discussions about other alternatives to layoffs, and [3] the Unionwas not asked to submit proposals to avoid the layoffs.

The arbitrator analyzed the record of the meeting and determined that meeting did not satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement, because "feasible alternatives" to layoffs were not properly discussed. As a remedy, the arbitrator ordered the reinstatement of the laid off employees to their former position with full back pay.

The Appellate Division said that it was “well settled” that courts review arbitration awards with a high level of deference and will not vacate and arbitration award unless it finds that "it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power." Further, said the court, an arbitrator's award will not be vacated when there is "some basis in the record for each of the arbitrator's findings," citing Branciforte v Levey, 222 AD2d 276.

The Appellate Division found that the arbitrator's determination had a basis in the record and that the arbitrator noted that some the employees received layoff letters the day after the meeting. This “suggested that the City had already made up its mind about the layoffs before the meeting.” The court concluded that “this evidence constitutes a rational basis for the arbitrator's determination that the ... meeting did not fulfill the meet-and-confer requirement.”

The City’s argued that “the remedy of reinstatement with back pay violated a strong public policy by infringing upon the ‘managerial prerogative’ reserved to the City and Administrative Code of the City of NY §12-307(b), which ‘specifically and clearly removes from collective bargaining considerations the right of the public employer to retire its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reason.”

The Appellate Division said essentially City contended that the directive to reinstate the employees that had been laid off infringed on the discretion of the City to make firing decisions. The directive, said the court, “does no such thing.” In the works of the court, “Nothing in the arbitrator's award precludes the City from following the citywide CBA procedure to which it agreed and ultimately laying off the [employees]. There is no managerial prerogative to violate the contract. As a proper meet-and-confer must precede any layoff, the arbitrator's remedy simply restored the status quo pending a proper meet-and-confer.”

Thus, the court concluded that the arbitrator's award "merely returned [the employees laid off] to the status they would have occupied had they not been wrongfully dismissed." By ordering the reinstatement of the employees that had been laid off the arbitrator made it possible for the contract to be executed as intended.

Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, “the judgment of the Supreme Court … confirming the arbitration award … should be affirmed, without costs.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_08658.htm

Another "Black Friday" opportunity – New York State to auction two seized luxury cars at December 1, 2015 vehicle and equipment auction in Albany

Another "Black Friday" opportunity – New York State to auction two seized luxury cars at December 1, 2015 vehicle and equipment auction in Albany
Source: NYS Office of General Services

The New York State Office of General Services has added a 2013 Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG and a 2012 Audi A7 Prestige Quattro to the list of items the public can bid on at a surplus vehicle, highway equipment, and miscellaneous property auction scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, December 1 at the Harriman State Office Building Campus in Albany. Items being sold will be available for inspection starting at 8:30 a.m. on the day of the auction.

The Mercedes, with approximately 721 miles on its odometer, and the Audi, with approximately 14,426 miles on it, were seized by the Attorney General’s Office in 2013 following an investigation into a $3.2 million Medicaid fraud case in Brooklyn. Proceeds from the sale of the two cars will be transferred to the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Unit.

This isn’t the first time OGS has sold seized items. In the summer of 2014, several pieces of men’s jewelry, including a Rolex watch, were sold on the NYSStore.com eBay site after they were confiscated from a suspected drug trafficker on Staten Island. Later that year, a 1971 Camaro that was reported stolen in 1976 and was seized by New York Statewas among vehicles sold at a state surplus vehicle auction in Poughkeepsie.

For a listing of New York Stateauctions to be held in the future, go to: https://www.nysstore.com/. For information on specific items and terms of sale, email state.surplus@ogs.ny.gov, or call (518) 457-6335.

Handbooks focusing on New York State and Municipal Public Personnel Law

Handbooks focusing on New York State and Municipal Public Personnel Law

The Discipline Book- A 458 page guide focusing on New York State laws, rules, regulations, disciplinary grievances procedures set out in collective bargaining agreements and selected court and administrative decisions concerning disciplinary actions involving state and municipal public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/5215.html

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant New York State laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions involving layoff and related matters. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/5216.html

Disability Leave for fire, police and other public sector personnel - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law §§207-a/207-c and other laws, rules, regulations and court decisions addressing disability and similar leaves absence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/3916.html

Summaries of recent decisions posted on the Internet by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH]

Summaries of recent decisions posted on the Internet by the New York CityOffice of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] 
Source: NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings
Click on text highlighted in color to access the text of the decision. 


OATH Administrative Law Judge denies employer’s motion to strike the testimony of two witnesses called by the accused

NYC Department of Corrections v Williams, OATH Index No. 2223/15

In this hearing conducted pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, OATH Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner denied a motion made by counsel for the NYC Department of Corrections to strike the testimony of two of the employees witnesses on the grounds that there was an indication of collusion.

The attorney said that the two witnesses worked in the same facility and were supervised by the employee and were jointly interviewed by the employee's counsel.

The employee’s counsel, on the other hand, described the pre-trial meeting as consisting of a five-minute conversation in which counsel informed the witnesses about why they were present and asked them to simply testify as to what they remembered about the incident.

Under the circumstances, Judge Spooner explained, there was virtually no possibility that the witnesses would alter their testimony to match one another as they testified about different stages of the charged incident. Further, said Judge Spooner, the witnesses’ working relationship with the employee who was the target of the disciplinary action, while a proper issue to consider when assessing credibility, did not warrant precluding their testimony entirely.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-2223.pdf

Computer specialist charged with misconduct, including answering his phone “in a robotic voice” 

OATH Index No. 2231/15

OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid M. Addison found that Ronald Dillon,* a computer specialist assigned to the IT Help Desk, answered the phone in a robotic voice on two occasions, created and abandoned service desk requests, failed to timely resolve tickets, misdirected callers, inaccurately re-classified a ticket and failed to respond to supervisor inquiries.

Dillon was also alleged to have” force-closed the employer’s acceptable use policy” on many occasions, thereby circumventing the acceptance of the agreement.

Judge Addison found the Department's proposed penalty, termination of Dillion’s employment, to be excessive and she recommended a thirty day suspension without pay.

Posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-2231.pdf 

* See, also, Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Dillon, OATH Index No. 108/14, posted on the Internet at http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/14-108.pdf, involving similar charges of misconduct filed against Dillon.

An employee who refused to report to her new work location found guilty of being absent without leave [AWOL]

OATH Index No. 1512/15

A New York City Sanitation Enforcement Agent (SEA) was charged with being AWOL when she refused to report to a new work location. The Department introduced a plan to reassign SEAs as an anti-corruption effort. SEAs were required to list three different work locations on a form or they could request an interview for personal hardship consideration.

The SEA, who was assigned in Brooklyn, did neither. When she was ordered to report to her new location in the Bronxshe refused to do so. At hearing the SEA argued that her seniority status entitled her to the work assignment she wanted in Brooklyn.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Susan J. Pogoda disagreed and sustained the AWOL charge filed against the employee. The assignment of personnel is within the employer's discretion and the SEA did not show that the transfer would present an imminent threat to her health or to her safety.

Taking into consideration the SEA's prior disciplinary record, Judge Pogoda recommended termination of her employment with the Department.   

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-1512.pdf

 ________________

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

 ________________

If §75 charges of misconduct "would, if proved in a court of law constitute a crime,” the 18-month statute of limitations for bringing such charges does not apply

If §75 charges of misconduct "would, if proved in a court of law constitute a crime,” the 18-month statute of limitations for bringing such charges does not apply
Hanlon v New York State Police, 2015 NY Slip Op 08315, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Christian Hanlon was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. Found guilty following an administrative disciplinary hearing held pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, the appointing authority imposed the penalty of dismissal of Hanlon’s  employment as a State Trooper.

Hanlon then commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order annulling  the determination finding him guilty of the disciplinary charges and terminating his employment, contending that “certain charges were time-barred pursuant to Civil Service Law §75(4).”

The Appellate Division disagreed, explaining that while a §75 disciplinary action must be commenced within 18 months of the occurrence of the "alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of," if the misconduct charged "would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime," the 18-month limitation does not apply.*

Here, said the court, the charges alleged conduct that would, if proved in a court of law, constitute the crime of official misconduct and thus they are not time-barred.**

The court also found that appointing authority’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority, dismissal, was not shocking to one's sense of fairness.

* In the case of a state employee who is designated managerial or confidential pursuant to Article 14 of Civil Service Law charges of incompetency or misconduct must be brought within one year after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges, unless the incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime.

** §195.00 of the Penal Law provides that "a public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: [1] He [or she] commits an act relating to his [or her] office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his [or her] official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized; or [2] He [or she] knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him [or her] by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of [his or her] office. Official misconduct is a class A misdemeanor."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_08315.htm

________________

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

________________