PERB will defer to an arbitration award involving the same parties and the same issue in determining an improper practice charge only in limited circumstances

PERB will defer to an arbitration award involving the same parties and the same issue in determining an improper practice charge only in limited circumstances

Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 06800, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The Buffalo City School District [District] adopted a resolution naming a single health insurance carrier for the teachers in its employ. This, however, constituted a change to the of the terms of the controlling collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the District and the Buffalo Teachers Federation [Federation], the teachers' collective bargaining representative. The District explained that "it was forced either to make that change to the CBA or to make 'massive cuts' in other areas." The Federation filed a grievance and demanded that the District's actions be submitted to arbitration.

The District subsequently sent a letter to 88 teachers informing them that they were to be laid off because of "the failure to reach an agreement on a single health insurance carrier had forced the District to make budgetary cuts elsewhere." Ultimately the District discontinued the services of the 88 teachers and implemented its resolution naming a single health insurance carrier. The Federation filed an improper practice charge alleging violations Civil Service Law §209-a (1) (a) and (d) of the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law Article 14 with New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB]

While that charge was pending before PERB, the grievance proceeded to arbitration. The  arbitrator concluded that the District had discharged the teachers "wrongfully, in furtherance of its ill-conceived effort to force the Union into submissive acceptance of the unilateral modification" to the CBA. The District was directed to reinstate the teachers with back pay whereupon the District filed an Article 75 petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award.

Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and the District appealed that ruling. The Appellate Division ruled that "the arbitrator acted in excess of the power granted to him with respect to that part of the award concerning the teachers" and vacated that part of the award providing for the reinstatement of the teachers.*

The improper practice charge, however,  proceeded before PERB on a stipulated record before an Administrative Law Judge [ALJ]. The ALJ concluded that the discharge of the 88 teachers was "the final step in the preconceived scheme designed to pressure [the Federation] to drop the single carrier grievance" and thus violated the Taylor Law and, as the arbitrator had ruled, the ALJ ordered the District to reinstate the teachers with back pay.The District filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision with PERB. 

PERB relying on the "long-recognized distinction between a threat of retaliation because either a union or covered employee exercises protected rights and a statement that there might be layoffs if the exercise of protected rights results in cost increases for the employer," concluded that the District "announced the layoffs as a decision that had already been made and explained the underlying reason for the layoffs." Thus, ruled PERB, "the  discharge of the teachers did not violate the statute" and reversed that part of the ALJ's determination that directed that the District reinstate the 88 teachers. The Federation then initiated the instant proceeding seeking to annul PERB's determination.

The Appellate Division observed that its review was limited to whether PERB's determination was affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court then explained that  ... "the agency charged with implementing the fundamental policies of the Taylor Law, [PERB] is presumed to have developed an expertise and judgment that requires us to accept its decisions with respect to matters within its competence."

The court rejected the Federation's contention that PERB's "determination was arbitrary and capricious inasmuch as PERB departed from its own precedent in refusing to defer to the arbitration award." The Appellate Division commented that although an administrative body acts arbitrarily and capriciously in departing from its own precedent and failing to explain the reasons for the departure, here PERB's determination was consistent with its own precedent. PERB, said the court, "will defer to an arbitration award only in limited circumstances and it usually does not do so where the charging party alleges a violation of Civil Service Law §209-a(1)(a).

As the Federation alleged the District had violated §209-a(1)(a) and (d), it was the precedent of PERB to refuse to defer to the arbitration award in this case. Further, said the court, to the extent that the arbitrator made findings with respect to the layoffs, it was reasonable for PERB not to defer to the arbitration award because the arbitrator had been earlier found to have exceeded the scope of his authority and his findings were inconsistent with PERB's interpretation of the statute.

Although it is unlawful for a public employer "to interfere with, restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of [certain] rights," such as their right to participate in organizing activity, "for the purpose of depriving them of such rights," in this instance the District had explained "that layoffs were a cost-cutting measure made necessary by the failure to reach an agreement on health insurance." The Appellate Division concluded that, based upon its review of the record, "it was rational for PERB to determine that the layoffs were not motivated by an improper purpose." 

* See Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. v Board of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of Buffalo, 50 AD3d 1503, leave to appeal denied, 11 NY3d 708. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_06800.htm

An educator seeking to overturn an unsatisfactory annual performance rating must meet is very high standard of proof

An educator seeking to overturn an unsatisfactory annual performance rating must meet is very high standard of proof

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,192

M.H., a tenured teacher of mathematics employed by the City School District of the City of New York received an unsatisfactory annual rating following four unsatisfactory observation reports. M.H. appealed the rating to the Chancellor’s Committee Chairperson. The Chairperson conducted a review at which M.H. was represented by an advocate from the relevant collective bargaining entity.

The Chairperson recommended that M.H..'s appeal be denied and that the unsatisfactory rating be sustained. The Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education adopted the Chairperson recommendation. M.H. appealed the Chancellor's decision to the Commissioner of Education.

After addressing a procedural issue, the Commissioner considered the merits of M.H.'s appeal, noting that the standard of proof required to overturn an unsatisfactory rating is very high and in the absence of a showing of malice, prejudice, bad faith or gross error, the Commissioner will not substitute his or her judgment for that of the Chancellor.

M.H., said the Commissioner, "... failed to meet her burden of proving that the unsatisfactory rating was based upon malice, prejudice, bad faith or gross error," explaining that the record indicates that the assistant principal conducted three formal observations of a math lesson taught by M.H. as well as one walk-through evaluation.. In the last observation report made by the assistant principal, the assistant principal concluded that:

(1) The lesson taught did not match the lesson written on the board or prescribed in M.H. ’s lesson plan;

(2) M.H. posed questions in which the answers were embedded;

(3) M.H. failed to implement previous recommendations, made in previous observation reports to “engage the students by creating a physical setting that promotes teamwork”; and

(4) there was no “share/summary” presentation, as observed in during the last observation.

The Commissioner said that in the course of the walk-through evaluation, "the assistant principal concluded that [M.H.] continued to struggle with questioning techniques", noting that earlier she had provided M.H. with a document called “Asking Better Questions” and that M.H. had failed to incorporate any of the suggestions contained in that document. 

As to M.H.'s argument that the observation reports were not based on “facts,” “statistics”, or “appropriate supporting data,” M.H. cited no legal requirement that evaluations of personnel must be based on such criteria, and the Commissioner said she found nothing inappropriate about the procedure utilized by the district. 

Although M.H. did not participate in a pre-observation conference before each observation as required, the Commissioner said that she did not find that such noncompliance prohibited imposing an unsatisfactory rating based upon the observations of the assistant principal and further found that the observations and conclusions of the assistant principal supported the unsatisfactory rating imposed on M.H..

Concluding that M.H.'s unsatisfactory rating was supported by the evidence in the record, and that M.H. "has not met her burden of proving malice, prejudice, bad faith or gross error attributable to the respondent," the Commissioner dismissed M.H.'s appeal

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17192

Determining an educator's seniority in a tenure area for the purposes of layoff upon the abolishment of a position or positions

Determining an educator's seniority in a tenure area for the purposes of layoff upon the abolishment of a position or positions

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,190

On June 16, 2008 16 elementary education teachers received appointments to positions in the elementary education tenure area effective September 1, 2008.  On June 16, 2015, the School Board [Board] abolished eight positions in the elementary education tenure area. effective July 1, 2015. Scott Page, Kiernan Terranova and Penny Valvo, [Respondents] were among the teachers retained while Gwendolyn Gingrich, Cindy Inglut and Kyle Mack [Petitioners] were among those excessed following the abolishment of the 8 positions.*

Petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Board's decision to excess them as a result of the abolishment of the eight position, contending that they were "not the least senior persons in the elementary tenure area." Supreme Court, Erie County, granted the school district’s motion to dismiss for lack of primary jurisdiction** and the Commissioner of Education assumed jurisdiction in the matter.

Petitioners contend that the Board erroneously credited Page, Terranova and Valvo with more seniority credit than Petitioners by providing them with seniority credit for prior interrupted substitute service.  Petitioners asked the Commissioner to rule that the Board violated Education Law §§2510(2) and 3013(2) and to reinstate them "with back pay, lost seniority credit, pension credits and other emoluments of the positions."

After considering procedural issues the Commissioner noted that it was undisputed that:

1. Petitioners were continuously employed by school district from September 1, 2008 through July 1, 2015 and that Page, Terranova and Valvo were each appointed by the Board on June 16, 2008. 

2. The record shows that the Board credited Page for regular substitute service from April 1, 2008 through June 12, 2008 (the school year ended on June 20, 2008); Terranova for regular substitute service from February 26, 2008 through June 13, 2008 (the school year ended on June 20, 2008); and Valvo for regular substitute service from April 6, 2006 to June 30, 2006, August 30, 2006 through June 30, 2007 and September 10, 2007 through November 16, 2007; thereby crediting these Respondents with more seniority credit.

The issue to be resolved, as identified by the Commissioner was whether the Board properly credited Respondents for substitute service that was not immediately prior to their June 16, 2008 probationary appointments for purposes of calculating seniority credit for the purposes of layoff under Education Law §§2510(2) and 3013(2) "where it appears from the record that respondents Page and Terranova’s service ended a week prior to their probationary appointment and respondent Valvo’s service ended more than a year before her probationary appointment."

Education Law §§2510(2) and 3013(2) govern the rights of individuals relate to a teacher’s abolition rights and provide, in pertinent part, "Whenever a trustee, board of trustee, board of education or board of cooperative educational services abolishes a position under this chapter, the services of the teacher having the least seniority in the system within the tenure of the position abolished shall be discontinued."

The Commissioner then observed that:

a. It is well-settled that for purposes of determining the seniority rights of teachers when a position is abolished, it is the teacher having the least seniority in the tenure area of the position abolished whose services must be discontinued;

b. It is well-settled that seniority credit for full-time substitute teaching under Education Law §2510(2) need not immediately precede full-time probationary experience; and

c. The Court of Appeals accepted the Commissioner’s interpretation in Appeal of Carey, 31 Ed Dept Rep 394, Decision No. 12,678, that a teacher whose full-time regular substitute service was interrupted could nonetheless receive seniority credit for such service.

In Carey the Commissioner said that Education Law §2510's "salutary purpose is furthered by allowing seniority credit for full-time substitute teaching even though interrupted." In contrast, the Commissioner has ruled that [i] “Teachers lose their seniority rights when they sever service with the school district" and [ii] "A teacher whose full-time service is interrupted by part-time service in the same district does not lose the right to claim such prior full-time service for purposes of seniority.”

The Commissioner concluded that the relevant consideration in this instance is whether Page, Terranova and Valvo’s employment in the school district was severed by the teacher or the district and concluded that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that Respondents voluntarily severed their employment with the district. 

In the words of the Commissioner: "All that is established on the current record is that each of these Respondents had a regular substitute position that terminated prior to their probationary appointments, which suggests that their substitute service was terminated by the district." Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed Petitioners' appeal, holding that the Board "properly treated [Respondents'] prior regular substitute service as interrupted rather than severed service and properly credited them for their prior regular substitute service in the district."

 

* Petitioners characterize the district’s decision as "abolishing their positions." It would be more accurate to state that the district abolished eight positions and then determined that Petitioners were the least senior in the tenure area of the positions abolished. Only in the event the incumbent was the sole individual having tenure in the tenure area of the abolished position could it be said that his or her position was abolished.

** The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction is applied in the event a judicial tribunal determines that the petitioner[s] should have first appealed to the Commissioner of Education  as he or she "is uniquely suited to resolve the matter and . . . possesses the specialized knowledge and experience required to determine the factual issue" involved in the litigation [see, for example, Donato v. Bd. of Educ., 286 A.D.2d 388].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17190

_______________________

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual -This e-book reviews the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5216.html  

_______________________