Labor & Employment Law

Improper Practices within the meaning of the Taylor Law ? decisions by PERB administrative law judges

Source: Summaries of decisions prepared by the Public Employment Relations Board

City Of Plattsburgh and Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Association, Local 2421, IAFF. An ALJ conditionally dismissed a charge alleging that the City of Plattsburgh violated the Act when it unilaterally changed its practice of allowing unit members to attend certain training courses on holidays, deferring to the parties' contractual grievance procedures. (ALJ Carlson, U-28192, 5/5/09)

Chenango Forks Teachers Association, NYSUT/AFT/AFL-CIO, Local 2561 and Chenango Forks Central School District. On remand, the record credibly evidenced that both the Association and unit employees employed as of June 12, 2003 were aware many years prior to that date of the District's reimbursement of Medicare Part B premiums to retirees. Therefore, the ALJ confirmed her August 22, 2006 decision and found that the District's June 12, 2003 memorandum to current employees rescinding receipt of that benefit upon retirement violated its duty to negotiate under §209-a.1(d) of the Act. (ALJ Comenzo, U-24520, 5/7/09)

Albany City School District and Albany Public School Teachers Association. An ALJ dismissed a charge alleging that the Albany City School District violated §§209-a.1(a) and (c) of the Act when it reassigned a teacher, finding that the Union did not meet its burden to establish improper motivation. (ALJ Carlson, U-27875, 5/12/09)

Amherst Highway Employees Association and Town Of Amherst. An improper practice charge which alleged a unilaterally implemented callout procedure that differed from the procedures set forth in the collectively negotiated agreement was deferred on the basis that a grievance was pending pursuant to the parties' grievance procedure under the collectively negotiated agreement. As the charge was based on the same facts asserted in the grievance, the charge was deferred in accordance with the Board's decision in Herkimer County BOCES. (ALJ Poland, U-28675, 5/13/09)

Incoporated Village of Malverne and Malverne Police Benevolent Association. An ALJ dismissed the Village's charge since proposals dealing with police discipline, health insurance coverage for dependents of retired employees who had deceased, and certain General Municipal Law 207-c proposals were mandatory subjects of bargaining. The ALJ sustained a PBA charge alleging that a proposal relating to unit configuration was not a mandatory subject of bargaining. (ALJ Maier, U-28688 & U-28731, 5/13/09)

Niagara Falls Police Club, Inc. and City Of Niagara Falls. The City of Niagara Falls was found to have violated the Act by refusing to respond to the Police Club's demand to negotiate a procedure to review initial determinations that an employee is not in compliance with the City's residency requirement. Defense that negotiations were precluded by the authority granted to the City to enact a residence requirement under Public Officers Law §30 was rejected, since that Statute does not address hearing procedures or appeals as to factual determinations of noncompliance. Further, the demand to bargain was not untimely since the matter had not been negotiated, nor had the right to negotiate it been waived. (ALJ Fitzgerald, U-27834, 5/15/09)

Village Of Mount Kisco and Police Benevolent Association Of Mount Kisco, New York, Inc. The ALJ dismissed a charge alleging that the Village violated §209-a.1(d) of the Act when it unilaterally ended a past practice of paying full salary without charge to leave accruals to employees who were receiving benefits under General Municipal Law §207-c, finding that the parties' collectively negotiated agreement contained a clear and unambiguous grant of authority for the Village to unilaterally end the past practice. (ALJ Burritt, U-27706, 5/18/09)

Eleanor Gaskin and United Federation Of Teachers. The Director dismissed a charge alleging that the employee organization violated the Act because it identified no act or omission within four months of the filing of the charge and an employee organization cannot violate §209-a.1(a) of the Act. (Director Klein, U-29113, 5/19/09)

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on August 13, 2009 (boomark / email).