Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Unit member bound by the terms set out in the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union

Unit member bound by the terms set out in the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union
Matter of Raymond v Walsh, 2009 NY Slip Op 04832, Decided on June 12, 2009, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Onondaga County Deputy Sheriff Joseph D. Raymond, Sr., was receiving benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c. Onondaga County notified Raymond that it would terminate these benefits on December 22, 1999.

Raymond sued, contending that the collective bargaining agreement between the Sheriff and his union required that he be given a hearing before his §207-c benefits could be terminated.

The Appellate Division rejected this claim, commenting that although the collective bargaining agreement provided unit members with the right to a hearing to contest a determination to terminate an individual?s §207-c benefits, it does not provide that the unit member has a right to a hearing prior to the termination of such benefits.

Accordingly, said the court, Raymond, ?by entering into the CBA through his union, waived his right to a pretermination hearing.?

The court cited Antinore v State of New York, 49 AD2d 6, affd 40 NY2d 921, the seminal case concerning the proposition that a unit member is bound by the terms and conditions negotiated by the union representing the collective bargaining unit.

In Antinore the issue concerning the right of an individual to demand a disciplinary hearing pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law after being found guilty of disciplinary charges adjudicated pursuant to ?a contract disciplinary grievance procedure? negotiated by the union.

The collective bargaining agreement in force at the time provided that unit members served with disciplinary charges could elect go forward either pursuant to the §75 disciplinary procedure or the contract?s ?disciplinary grievance procedure.? Antinore elected the contract disciplinary procedure and when found guilty by the arbitrator, claimed that administrative due process required that he be given a §75 disciplinary hearing. The court rejected his theory, holding that if the negotiated alternative to the §75 disciplinary procedue afforde the accused the equivalent administrative due process, his or her Constitutional right to due process was satisfied.

Addressing the issue of the timeliness of Raymond?s Article 78 action, the Appellate Division said that as his petition ?was in the nature of mandamus to review rather than mandamus to compel the performance of a ministerial act required by law, the four-month statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 217 began to run on the date on which [Raymond] received notice of the termination of his section 207-c benefits.? As he was advised of the termination of his §207-c benefits on December 2, 1999, his filing of his petition on August 17, 2007 was time-barred.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_04832.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 17, 2009 (boomark / email).