Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Union Release Time In The Public Sector

A court in Arizona reportedly held that police could not use release time for union representationalwork. A newspapter article describing this case is available here. The plaintiff's theory appears to be that paying public employees for union business is a gift of public funds.

I do not buy this for a minute and it is just another example of anti-union animus that some people feel. I see this as no different than wages. A union also presents order in the workforce and that provides a benefit to the public. Preventing arbitrary employer action is also in the publics interest as most labor law statutes were enacted to reduce industrial strife. Public policy supports the right to organize and bargain collectively.

Law review commentary on this important topic would be most welcome.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Administrative agency’s failure to follow its own precedents in adjudicating the issue results in court remanding the matter to it for its further consideration

City of New Rochelle v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2012 NY Slip Op 08860, Appellate Division, Third Department

The City of New Rochelle and the Police Association of New Rochelle [PBA] entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve the improper practice charge that the PBA had filed with PERB concerning “special duty details.” The stipulation set out the terms and conditions resolving the improper practice charge and included a provision that such "[a]greement and its subject matter [would] not be subject to the grievance and/or arbitration procedures contained in [the] collective bargaining agreement between [the City] and the [PBA], it would] be enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction."

When the City entered into a written agreement with the New Rochelle Superior Officers' Association  [SOA] allowing sergeants and lieutenants to work special duty details, the PBA, claiming that special duty details had previously been performed exclusively by its members, filed another improper practice charge with PERB.

The City, contending that the improper practice charge had its genesis in a contractual dispute earlier resolved with the stipulation between the City and the PBA, argued that PERB lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

A PERB Administrative Law Judge found that PERB did have jurisdiction over the underlying charge and, further, that the City had engaged in an improper practice when it unilaterally transferred exclusive bargaining unit work to nonunit employees. PERB affirmed the ALJ's decision and the City file initiated a CPLR Article 78 action challenging PERB’s determination.

The Appellate Division, noting that the City, as a public employer, is required to negotiate in good faith with the PBA regarding the terms and conditions of its members' employment said that Civil Service Law §205(5)(d) “makes clear that PERB ‘shall not have authority to enforce an agreement between an employer and an employee organization and shall not exercise jurisdiction over an alleged violation of such an agreement that would not otherwise constitute an improper employer or employee organization practice,’ and an ‘agreement,’ for purposes of the statute, includes collective bargaining agreements.”

Further, said the court, “PERB "has consistently interpreted [Civil Service Law §205 (5)(d)] to deprive it of jurisdiction over failure-to-negotiate improper practice charges when the underlying disputes are essentially contractual, in favor of resolving the dispute through the parties' grievance-arbitration machinery, or resort to the courts."

PERB, however, had rejected the City’s jurisdictional defense based on its earlier stipulation of settlement with the PBA, holding that while the stipulation addressed the issue of eligibility for special duty details did not expressly speak to the issue of the exclusivity of such assignments being vested in PBA unit members.

The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that PERB's own prior decisions make it clear that "[a] jurisdictional issue can be raised . . . even if the agreement [at issue] does not address specifically the particular allegations of the improper practice charge if the agreement is a source of right to the charging party with respect to the subject matter of the charge."

Accordingly, said the court, it was satisfied that the stipulation of settlement provides "a reasonably arguable source of right with respect to the subject matter of the [underlying improper practice] charge" -- even in the absence of an express reference to the issue of exclusivity and thus "PERB erred in summarily dismissing the City's jurisdictional defense and reaching the merits of the dispute."

The Appellate Division annulled PERB’s determination and remitted the matter to it for its consideration of whether the improper practice charged should be summarily dismissed at this juncture or, alternatively, conditionally dismissed pending judicial resolution of the underlying contractual dispute.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08860.htm 

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Breaking News! 7th Upholds The Constitutionality of Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill

Wisconsin Educational Council v. Walker, ____F.3d___(7th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013), is an important case that you are going to hear more about. In a 74 page decision, the 7th Circuit upholds the constitutionality of Wisconsin Act 10, the so-called Budget Repair Bill, Download WEAC v Walker -- 7th Circuit Decision 

The major challenge was on equal protection grounds. Specifically, the statute creates two classifications of public employees; public safety employees and general employees whom the restrictive labor relations provisions apply to. The prohibition of payroll deductions was also challenged on First Amendment grounds. The court rejected each of these arguments. 

The court applied the rational basis standard of review and concluded that the statute did not create view point discrimination. The court reasoned that differring treatment could be justified on the greater consequences of public safety worker strikes. 

The court did acknowledge the unions' agrument that it was only those same public safety unions who supported Governor Walker for election. So much for view point discrimination. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Unambiguous contract of employment language that is inconsistent with the employer’s policy nevertheless controls

Chatelle v North Country Community Coll, 2012 NY Slip Op 08215, Appellate Division, Third Department

When North Country Community College hired Shane Chatelle as its Facilities and Special Projects Manager in 2004, the College’s President provided Chatelle with a letter setting forth his salary and enclosing a copy of the resolution of its Board of Trustees approving the appointment together with a written statement of the Board's "management confidential"* staff policy “purporting to provide,” that among other benefits, that Chatelle would be compensated for up to 180 days of accumulated sick leave upon his severance from employment.

In 2011, Chatelle resigned from his position and requested compensation for his accumulated sick leave. The College, claiming that, despite the statement provided to him upon his appointment, its actual policy authorized compensation for accrued sick leave only upon retirement.

Chatelle sued, contending breach of contract, among other things. Supreme Court granted Chatelle’s motion in part, awarding him $44,114.96 in damages for breach of contract but dismissed his remaining claims. Chatelle and the College “cross appealed” the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division said that the written statement provided to Chatelle upon his employment indicated that he was entitled to "the benefits afforded by the existing [m]aster [a]greements except where modified or defined by the following [benefits]."

With regard to the sick leave benefit, the statement provided that Chatelle was entitled to 30 sick days per year, cumulative to 180 days and "[a]t [the] time of severance sick leave will be compensated."

Although the College, relying on extrinsic evidence, argued that the statement given to Chatelle was in error and that the Board had intended to adopt a policy that only compensated for sick leave at retirement, the Appellate Division said that had “no reason to consider this [extrinsic] evidence because the statement's language is clear and unambiguous.”

Accordingly, said the court, the College is bound by the terms of the writing provided to Chatelle as part of his employment contract “and may not rely on its unilateral mistake to void the agreement,” explaining that the text of the statement is clear and Chatelle does not rely on past practice nor claim “estoppel to enforce his contractual right.”

The Appellate Division, however, modified Supreme Court’s judgment granting Chatelle $44,114.96 as payment for his unliquidated sick leave accruals by reducing the award to $4,770, “representing [Chatelle 's] 159 accrued sick days at $30 per day."

* Presumably Chatelle was designated "managerial" or "confidential" within the meaning of  §201.7 of the Civil Service Law [The Taylor Law] upon his appointment.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08215.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Claims for certain health insurance benefits and the liquidation of sick leave credits upon retirement rejected

Decision 1. Suttlehan v Town of New Windsor, 2012 NY Slip Op 07292, Appellate Division, Second Department [re: Health Insurance]

Decision 2. Suttlehan v Town of New Windsor, 2012 NY Slip Op 07293, Appellate Division, Second Department [re: Sick Leave Credits]

Town of New Windsor Town Justice Donald J. Suttlehan sued the Town, contending that it was in breach of contracts when it (1) eliminated his alleged entitlement, upon his retirement, to fully paid lifetime health care benefits for himself and his spouse [Decision 1] and (2) failing to pay him for his unused sick-leave credits upon his retirement [Decision 2].

On January 7, 2009, the Town adopted resolutions prospectively awarding Justice Suttlehan [a] “fully paid lifetime medical benefits for himself and his spouse” upon his retirement and [b] granted certain post-retirement health-care benefits to elected officials with eight years or more of service. On May 6, 2009 the Town adopted a resolution revoking its January 7, 2009 action with respect to providing “lifetime health care benefits” and Town modified its earlier “unused sick-leave” resolution in accordance with a new schedule.

Justice Suttlehan retired in July 2009. He then filed petitions in Supreme Court challenging the Town’s actions that he alleged truncated certain benefits to which he claimed he was entitled upon his retirement..

With respect to his claim to “lifetime medical benefits,” Justice Suttlehan alleged “breach of contract and promissory estoppel….” He argued that, among other things, that the Town’s January 7, 2009 resolution imposed a contractual obligation upon the Town to provide him with lifetime medical benefits or, in the alternative, that, by adopting the resolution, the Town became obligated to provide him with those benefits under the theory of promissory estoppel.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Justice Suttlehan’s petition, holding that the Town had met its “prima facie burden of establishing that [it was] not obligated to provide lifetime medical benefits to the plaintiff and his spouse, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.”

The Appellate Division said the resolution dated May 6, 2009, which revised Justice Suttlehan’s health-care benefits only with respect to coverage for claims made, or to be made, subsequent to his separation from Town employment, was not discriminatory as it was applicable to various elected officials -- the Town Supervisor, Town Clerk, Superintendent of Highways, Receiver of Taxes, Town Justices, and members of the Town Board -- as well as to the Town’s judiciary.

Rejecting Justice Suttlehan’s argument that the resolution violated his rights pursuant to the separation of powers doctrine or the compensation clause of the New York Constitution, the Appellate Division noted that the resolution addressed the prospective reduction of a municipal official's health benefits only after his or her retirement, not the reduction in the salary or benefits of a justice during his or her term in office.

In any event, said the Appellate Division, "[a] municipal resolution is, in general, a unilateral action that is temporary in nature and, thus, it does not create any vested contractual rights," citing Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d 326.

As to Justice Suttlehan’s cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract with respect to the liquidation of his unused sick-leave credits, Supreme Court held that he was entitled to payment for 397 unused sick days, The Town appealed the court’s decision.

The Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court’s ruling, holding that "In general, a public employee whose employment has terminated may not recover the monetary value of unused . . . sick time in the absence of statutory or contractual authority."

The Town, said the court, had met its prima facie burden of showing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that there was no statutory or contractual authority for the relief sought by Justice Suttlehan and Supreme Court should have dismissed the Justice’s cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract with regard payment for his unused sick-leave credits.

The “health insurance” decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07292.htm

The “sick leave” decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07293.htm

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

PERB’s policy of initially deferring to a contract abitiration procedure between the parties to resolve an “alleged improper practice” challenged

Westchester County Dept. of Pub. Safety Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2012 NY Slip Op 07178, Appellate Division, Third Department

The New York State Public Employment Relations Board’s [PERB] “deferral policy” in cases alleging "improper practices" was challenged by Westchester County. The County contended that the policy constituted “an abandonment of the exclusive, nondelegable jurisdiction over improper practice charges granted to PERB by Civil Service Law §205(5)(d).”

Essentially, PERB’s policy utilized an agreed-upon binding arbitration procedure set out in a collective bargaining agreement between the parties to resolve a “claimed improper practice” before it would consider the allegation.

The union had filed an improper practice charge with PERB alleging that the County had refused to negotiate an issue concerning the "maintenance of standards" clause in the governing collective bargaining agreement in violation of Civil Service Law §209-a(1)(d).

When PERB applied its deferral policy and conditionally dismissed the charge pending the outcome of binding arbitration conducted pursuant to the negotiated grievance procedure over Westchester's objections, Westchester filed a petition in Supreme Court appealing its ruling.

Supreme Court dismissed the County’s petition, agreeing with PERB that the charge raised an issue covered by the CBA and thus provided a reasonable basis for PERB to apply its policy of deferring the matter to binding arbitration. The Appellate Division agreed, noting that PERB had earlier ruled on this issue, which decision was affirmed in Matter of Westchester County Police Officer's Benevolent Assn. v Public Empl. Relations Bd., 301 AD2d 850. This, said the Appellate Division, gave the union “a reasonably arguable right to submit the conduct alleged in the improper practice charge to binding arbitration.”

The Appellate Division, in sustaining the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the County’s appeal, explained:

1. The application of the policy resulted in a conditional dismissal, meaning that the improper practice charge remains subject to being reopened before PERB after the conclusion of the arbitration process; and

2. The courts have generally deferred to PERB's interpretation of its jurisdiction under Civil Service Law §205(5)(d), citing Matter of Roma v Ruffo, 92 NY2d 489.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07178.htm

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Barring a former employee from property and Employee Does Not Have Right To Select Arbitrator

Toussaint v Local 100, TWU, CA2, U.S. App. LEXIS 16257

May an employer prohibit an individual it has dismissed from entering its property? The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the employer may prohibit such an individual from entering its non-public areas.

A Transportation Workers Union representative had been dismissed from his position with the New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA]. NYCTA then banned the representative from the non-public areas of its property. The representative sued, contending that this action by NYCTA violated his First Amendment rights.

The Circuit Court affirmed a federal district court's dismissal of the Union representative’s petition. The lower court had determined that he "failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits" because:

1. He did not demonstrate that he was excluded from non-public areas because the Transit Authority's motivation was to impair the exercise of his First Amendment freedoms or;

2. The Transit Authority's rule barring discharged employees from non-public areas lacked a reasonable basis.

The representative also attempted to obtain a stay of arbitration, claiming that NYCTA and Local 100 went forward with his arbitration "without allowing him to participate in selecting a neutral arbitrator to chair the arbitration panel." The Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this representation as moot "because the arbitration [had] proceeded to conclusion."

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell Rubinstein

National security trumps federal employee’s civil service protection

Various media reports

Newspapers and others have published articles about a United States Circuit Court decision that concluded that the federal Merit Systems Protective Board cannot consider appeals from federal workers demoted or terminated from their position based on their lack of  “security clearance.”

The Circuit Court held that ”the Board cannot review the merits of Executive Branch agencies’ national security determinations concerning eligibility of an employee to occupy a sensitive position that implicates national security.”

In response to a number of inquiries seeking a copy of the decision, the case is Berry [as Director, Office of Personnel Management] v Conyers and Northover and the Merit Systems Protective Board, # 2011-3207, Petition for Review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in Consolidated Case Nos. CH0752090925-R-1 and AT0752100184-R-1, US Circuit Court of Appeal, Federal Circuit.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-3207.pdf

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Is Mayor Bloomberg Violating The Taylor Law By Advocating For a General Strike

Mayor Bloomberg Flirts With Violating The Taylor Law is an interesting article from New York Magazine.  Blommie is quoted as saying:

             "I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say             'We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your             legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.' After all, police officers want to go home to their             families, and we're doing everything we can to make their job more difficult but more importantly             more dangerous."

It is of course, a violation of the Taylor Law for a public employee to call for a strike. The Mayor is a public employee. So did the Mayor violate the Taylor Law? That is certainly a debateable question. Interestingly, he is calling for a general type of strike which would effect all police departments. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Hat Tip: Workplace Prof Blog

Employee terminated for cause entitled to back pay for the period she was suspended without pay in excess of 30 days

 

The Westchester County Health Care Corporation adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, finding the employee guilty of certain charges of misconduct and insubordination. It then terminated the individual from its employ.

Te Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court’s dismissal of an Article 78 petition challenging the disciplinary termination of an employee with respect to the merits of the appeal. The court held that contrary to the individual’s contention, Westchester’s determination that the individual was guilty of certain charges of misconduct and insubordination was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The court also rejected the individual’s claim that she was denied a fair hearing due to the alleged bias of the hearing officer as being without merit, finding that there was no evidence in the record to support her contention that the hearing officer was biased.

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the court ruled that termination was “not so disproportionate to the offenses committed by the petitioner as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.”

Although the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court’s dismissal of an Article 78 petition challenging the disciplinary action, the court remanded the matter to the lower court for its determination regarding any back pay due the dismissed individual.

Here, said the court, the individual “correctly contends that she is entitled to back pay for the period she was suspended without pay in excess of 30 days, excluding delay, if any, occasioned by her, and less unemployment insurance benefits received for that period, if any,” citing Civil Service Law §75[3].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03839.htm

 

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Blog

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Supremes Issue Major Agency Fee Payer Decision

Knox v. SEIU____U.S.____(June 21, 2012)

NY Court of Appeals Holds More Stringent Dual Employment Standards Are Mandatory Subjects

Matter of NYC Transit Authority v. PERB, ___N.Y. 3d____(June 17, 2012), is an important case. The employer unilaterally imposed more stringent dual employment standards for certain employees. Though not explained in the decision, these policies appear to have limited employee moonlighting. In upholding PERB's finding that an IP occurred, the Court explained:

It is well settled that "[t]he Taylor Law (Civil Service Law art 14) requires collective bargaining over all 'terms and conditions of employment'" (Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 6 NY3d 563, [*3]572 [2006], quoting Civil Service Law § 204 [2]). Where a public employee alleges that a public employer has failed to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment — an improper employer practice (see Civil Service Law § 209-a [1] [d]), PERB has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the parties (see Civil Service Law § 205 [5] [d]; see also Matter of Zuckerman v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 44 NY2d 336, 342 [1978]). We "have made clear that 'the presumption . . . that all terms and conditions of employment are subject to mandatory bargaining' cannot easily be overcome" (Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. 6 NY3d at 572, quoting Matter of City of Watertown v State of N.Y. Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 95 NY2d 73, 79 [2000]). However, "certain decisions of an employer, though not without impact upon its employees, may not be deemed mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment[] . . . because they are inherently and fundamentally policy decisions relating to the primary mission of the public employer" (Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 75 NY2d 660, 669 [1990]; see also Matter of County of Erie v State of N.Y. Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 12 NY3d 72, 78 [2009]).

Here, the NYCTA urges us to hold that its implementation of more stringent dual employment standards was mission-related and, therefore, not subject to collective bargaining. It is indisputable that the NYCTA's core mission is to provide a safe system of public transit (see Public Authorities Law §§ 1202 [1], 1204 [15]). Although we need not "defer to PERB's judgment" (Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc., 6 NY3d at 575) on whether an employer's unilateral policy decision relates to its primary mission, the record in this case is inadequate to support the NYCTA's argument that the dual employment standards at issue were in furtherance of its core mission of public safety. As noted earlier, the NYCTA did not rely on particular safety studies when it imposed these new standards. Moreover, the NYCTA did not explain why it chose to impose the more restrictive dual employment standards on certain safety-sensitive employees — train conductors, train operators and tower operators — while exempting others — bus operators and train dispatchers — who share similar job functions. Simply put, on the limited record before us, there is an insufficient basis to disturb PERB's determination.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

U.S. Supreme Court renders unanimous decision: private individuals working on temporary basis for government are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 suits

Filarsky v. Delia, No. 10-1018 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2012)

A party's demand to arbitrate a grievance must survive a two-prong test: is the subject of the dispute arbitrable and, if so, did the parties agree to do so

 

Arbitration between the Town Of Saugerties and the Town of Saugerties Policeman's Benevolent Assn., 2012 NY Slip Op 00458, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Town of Saugerties challenged the Supreme Court's denial of its CPLR 7503 petition to stay the arbitration of a grievance filed by the Town of Saugerties Policeman's Benevolent Association [PBA] concerning an order that required a police officer to work in excess of an eight-hour tour.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) stated, among other things, that the Town "agrees to comply with the requirements of §971 of the Unconsolidated Laws of New York."*

Courts, said the Appellate Division, determine arbitrability according to a two-prong test:

1. May the parties arbitrate the dispute and, if so,

2. Whether the parties in fact agreed to do so.

The Town contended that demand to arbitrate fails both tests as the resolution of the dispute:

1. Requires the application or interpretation of the terms of a statute and public policy will not permit an arbitrator to apply or interpret a statute, and

2. The parties did not agree to arbitrate the application or interpretation of the statute at issue here.

The Appellate Davison decided that neither of the Town’s arguments had merit, explaining that the CBA incorporates §971 by reference, making the language of the statute a substantive provision of the CBA.

Further, said the court, the Town had identified any public policy that would preclude the arbitrator from interpreting such language set out in the CBA.

In addition, the court noted that the CBA defines disputes as "[a]ny grievance arising concerning the interpretation or application of the terms of this contract or the rights claimed thereunder and/or working conditions."

As the dispute underlying the PBA’s grievance concerns overtime, which is clearly a working condition, clearly one that the parties intended to arbitrate the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court correctly granted the PBA’s cross motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the Town’s petition.

* §971 of the Unconsolidated Law, in relevant part, provides that police officers shall not be assigned to tours of duty exceeding eight consecutive hours of each consecutive 24 hours, with certain exceptions. See, also,  Police Asso. of the City of Mt. Vernon v City of Mt. Vernon, 279 A.D.2d 561, posted on the Internet at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/1055483.html

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_00458.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

Employee's inability to provide the necessary urine sample for a drug test because of a medical condition trumps allegations of misconduct

 

NYC Department of Sanitation v E.L., OATH Index #2107/11

The Department of Sanitation charged a sanitation worker, E.L., with failure to complete a federally mandated drug test in violation of Rule 2.5 of the Department’s Code of Conduct. 

E.L. had appeared for the test and was cooperative but was unable to provide the required amount of urine in the three hours he was given. He subsequently submitted a note from his urologist, explaining that E.L. had urological conditions that could have prevented him from urinating. Later E.L. was diagnosed as having prostate cancer. 

The Medical Review Officer (MRO), who had no specialized knowledge in urology, ruled that the note submitted by E.L.’s physician were insufficient to excuse for E.L.’s failure to provide a sufficient sample.  In addition, the MRO refused to consider E.L.’s prostate cancer as that condition was not diagnosed within the five-day time period the regulations gave test subjects for providing a note. 

As a result, the MRO marked respondent as having refused to take the drug test and the Department initiated disciplinary action against E.L. 

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kara J. Miller found that both the test collector and the MRO failed to follow federal drug testing procedures, and these procedural errors mandated cancellation of E.L.’s test. 

In addition Judge Miller ruled that even absent the necessity for cancellation, the charges against E.L. should be dismissed as his actions were not willful and the evidence established that he was physically unable to provide the required amount of urine when asked to the urine sample requested and dismissed the charges the Department had filed against E.L.  

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-2107.pdf

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

The arbitrator does not have the power to modify an arbitration award that has been judicially confirmed

 

Kalyanaram v New York Inst. of Tech., 2012 NY Slip Op 00309, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division rejected a party to the arbitration assertion that disputes concerning the performance of the remedy provisions of the arbitration award should be determined by the arbitrator as being without merit in this instance.

The court explained that “Since a final arbitration award has been rendered finally resolving the dispute between the parties, and the award has been judicially confirmed (79 AD3d 418 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 712 [2011]), a judgment enforceable by the courts has been entered (see CPLR 7514),” the arbitrator isfunctus officio, “without power to amend or modify the final award.”

Functus officio means "having performed his office." Where, as here, there has been a final judicial determination concerning the matter, the arbitrator no longer has jurisdiction.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_00309.htm

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

Arizona Senate Rules Committee Would Prohibit Bargaining In Public Sector

Sometimes I do not understand what this world is coming to. A Arizona Senate Rules Committee recently passed a number of anti-union Bills which have no chance of being enacted into law, including:

SB 1485: Would prohibit public sector collective bargaining and would preempt any local laws providing for local collective bargaining.

• SB 1487: Would outlaw payroll deduction for all public sector union dues.

• SB 1484: Would require public employers to obtain annual written or electronic authorization for any third party payroll deductions.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

Personal interests not protected by the Taylor Law

 

Westhampton Beach Police PBA and Village of Westhampton Beach, 35 PERB 3026

 

An employee making complaints unrelated to any specific provision in the collective bargaining agreement and that essentially concern matters of private, personal interest, has not established any basis for prosecuting a claim that he or she was subjected to adverse personnel action because of his or her engaging in a protected activity within the meaning of the Taylor Law. 

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Breaking News International Labor Organization Rules That Taylor Law Ban On Strike Is Improper

The TWU filed a complaint, here, alleging the ban on public employee strikes and the penalties issued against the TWU in 2006 NYC Transit Strike were improper. On Nov. 1, 2011, the ILO issued a lengthly decision, here, agreeing with the TWU, reasoning in part:

As regards the overall prohibition of strike action in the public service under the Taylor Law, the Committee recalls that it has always recognized the right to strike by workers and their organizations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 521]. While the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited: (1) in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; or (2) in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), the Committee recalls that the transportation sector, including metropolitan transport, does not constitute an essential service in the strict sense of the term [see Digest, op. cit., paras 576 and 587]. GB.312/INS/9 190 GB312-INS_9_[2011-11-0195-1]-Web only-En.docx 

The TWU web site contains additional information about this important decision. 

So what does this mean?? I am afraid very little. The decision itself notes that the U.S. has not ratified a treaty and presumably this means that the U.S. is not bound by the decision which simply recommends that the U.S. take steps to rectify the situation and make the union and its President, who was jailed for striking, whole. 

The decision could mean something in the political arena. However, since this decision does not appear to break new ground and public employee strikes have been unlawful in many states for many years, the prospect for any real change would appear to be quite small.

Remarkably, little press has been generated about this important issue. Hopefully, that will change. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

N.Y. Police Disciplinary Hearings Can Be Public

Matter of Doe v. City of Schenectady, ___A.D.3d____(3d Dep't May 5, 2011), is an interesting case. The court holds that police disciplinary hearings can be open to the public. As the court explained:

In any event, petitioners' contention that Civil Rights Law § 50-a mandates that disciplinary hearings be closed to the public is belied by both the language of the statute and its legislative history. Section 50-a (1) provides, in pertinent part:

All personnel records, used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control of any police agency or department of the state or any political subdivision thereof including authorities or agencies maintaining police forces of individuals defined as police officers in [CPL 1.20] shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such police officer . . . except as may be mandated by lawful court order.

Section 50-a created, for reasons that will be discussed below, an exemption from document disclosure that might otherwise occur under the Freedom of Information Law (see Public Officers Law art 6; Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 567 [1986]). Nothing in section 50-a mentions the word disciplinary hearing, let alone requires that such hearings be held in private, and we discern no import from this omission other than the obvious — that the failure of the Legislature to include it within the statute is an indication that its exclusion was intended (see Pajak v Pajak, 56 NY2d 394, 397 [1982]; Matter of Collins v Dukes Plumbing & Sewer Serv., Inc., 75 AD3d 697, 699-700 [2010], lv granted 15 NY3d 713 [2010]; see also McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 74 ["[T]he failure of the Legislature to include [a] matter within the scope of an act may be construed as an indication that its exclusion was intended."], § 94 ["The legislative intent is to be ascertained from the words and language used, and the statutory language is generally construed according to its natural and most obvious sense, without resorting to an artificial or forced construction."]; Bright Homes v Wright, 8 NY2d 157, 162 [1960] ["Courts are not supposed to legislate under the guise of interpretation, and in the long run it is better to adhere closely to this principle and leave it to the Legislature to correct evils if any exist."]; People v Olah, 300 NY 96, 102 [1949] ["A statute must be construed and applied as it is written by the Legislature, not as some judges may believe it should have been written." (citation omitted)];Matter of Kittredge v Planning Bd. of Town of Liberty, 57 AD3d 1336, 1339 [2008] ["In construing a statute, a court must attempt to harmonize all its provisions and to give meaning to all its parts, considered as a whole, in accord with legislative intent. Such intent and meaning is best determined from the plain language of the statutory text." (citations omitted)]).

The legislative history of Civil Rights Law § 50-a is similarly unavailing to petitioners' position. The "statute was intended to apply to situations where a party to an underlying criminal or civil action is seeking documents in a police officer's personnel file, and was apparently designed to prevent 'fishing expeditions' to find material to use in cross-examination" (Matter of[*4]Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 109 AD2d 92, 95 [1985], affd 67 NY2d 562 [1986] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Daily Gazette Co. v City of Schenectady, 93 NY2d 145, 154 [1999]; Matter of Dunnigan v Waverly Police Dept., 279 AD2d 833, 834 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 710 [2001]; Carpenter v City of Plattsburgh, 105 AD2d at 298; Senate and Assembly Introducer Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 1976, ch 413; Mem of Div of Criminal Justice Servs, Bill Jacket, L 1976, ch 413). The Court of Appeals has confirmed that "the legislative intent underlying the enactment of Civil Rights Law § 50-a was narrowly specific, to prevent time-consuming and perhaps vexatious investigation into irrelevant collateral matters in the context of a civil or criminal action" (Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d at 569 [internal quotations marks and citation omitted]). Significantly, none of the legislative history mentions the topic of disciplinary hearings.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein