Arbitrator to determine if contract clauses alleged in a grievance involve substantive contract provisions

Arbitrator to determine if contract clauses alleged in a grievance involve substantive contract provisions

Matter of Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. (Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES Federation of Teachers, 2016 NY Slip Op 00796, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. [BOCES] initiated an Article 75 proceeding seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of a grievance that alleged that BOCES violated certain provisions of relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by changing the prescription copay benefit for its retirees. Supreme Court denied the petition and granted the cross-petition of the Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES Fedn. of Teachers [Federation] to compel arbitration. The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division rejected BOCES’ contention that the matter was not arbitrable because the CBA provisions applied to the employees and not to retirees, and thus that there is no reasonable relationship between the copay benefit for retirees and the general subject matter of the respective CBAs.

Citing Village of Kenmore [Kenmore Club Police Benevolent Association, 114 AD3d 1185, (leave to appeal denied, 23 NY3d 903), the court explained that the issues concerning [the Federation’s] relationship to retired employees and the issues concerning [1] whether retirees are covered by the grievance procedure and [2] whether the clauses of the contract[s] support the grievance “are matters involving the scope of the substantive contractual provisions and, as such, are for the arbitrator" to resolve.

The Appellate Division said that it was “well settled that the court must conduct a two-part analysis in determining whether an issue is subject to arbitration pursuant to a CBA.” The first test: is there any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance. The second test: "is there a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA.

Unanimously denying its appeal, the Appellate Division noted that BOCES “correctly concedes that the second test considered in the analysis is at issue here.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_00785.htm

Terminated probationary employee has the burden of demonstrating an improper basis for his or her termination

Terminated probationary employee has the burden of demonstrating an improper basis for his or her termination

Francois v Walcott, 2016 NY Slip Op 00760, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed a determination by Supreme Court, New which denied the petition filed by Coquita Francois seeking to annul her termination during her probationary employee, to vacate her unsatisfactory rating for the 2012-2013 school year, and to reinstate her employment.

The Appellate Division explained that “[i]t is well established that a ‘probationary employee may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that [the] dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of law.’”

Francois, said the Appellate Division, failed to demonstrate an improper basis for the termination of her probationary employment. In contrast, the employer’s documentary evidence provided a rational basis for the determination that Francois’ job performance was unsatisfactory.

Although Francois disputed the principal's account of events and the principal's opinion of her job performance, the Appellate Division said that she “failed to show that certain irregularities in the review process demonstrated bad faith or deprived her of a substantial right” and dismissed her appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_00760.htm

Factual findings made in a disciplinary hearing have a collateral estoppel effect where the individual had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the alleged misconduct at that hearing

Factual findings made in a disciplinary hearing have a collateral estoppel effect where the individual had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the alleged misconduct at that hearing

Matter of Hopton (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 00743, Appellate Division, Third Department

Nina Hopton, a correction officer, was served with disciplinary charges alleging that she had violated her employer's rules [1] by having an improper personal relationship with an inmate and [2] by giving false statements to investigators regarding that relationship.

Following a disciplinary hearing held in accordance with Civil Service Law §75, an Administrative Law Judge found there was evidence sufficient to support the bulk of the charges filed against Hopton and recommended that she be dismissed from her position. The appointing authority accepted the findings and recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge and terminated Hopton employment.

Hopton applied for unemployment insurance benefits but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [Board] denied her claim on the ground that she lost her employment due to misconduct. Hopton appealed the Board’s ruling.

The Appellate Division sustained the Board’s decision, explaining that the Board “properly gave collateral estoppel effect to the factual findings stemming from the disciplinary hearing inasmuch as the record establishes that [Hopton] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of misconduct at that hearing."

Although Hopton contended that she was appealing the disciplinary determination, the Appellate Division said that such an appeal “does not preclude the application of collateral estoppel.” In any event, said the court, the Board “drew its own conclusions that [Hopton’s] behavior, which involved violations of known policies of the employer and were detrimental to the employer's best interest, constituted disqualifying misconduct for the purpose of [eligibility for] unemployment insurance benefits."

Finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, the Appellate Division said “it will not be disturbed.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_00743.htm

_________________

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 

_________________