Labor & Employment Law

Due process and negotiated agreements

Due process and negotiated agreements
Ciambriello v Nassau County, CA2, 01-7556

The Ciambriello case involves a situation not uncommon in labor relations: a union filing a grievance on behalf certain members in the negotiating unit that adversely affects other members in the same unit. Also an issue in this case: an employee's right to a pre-termi­nation hearing in situations involving his or her demotion after an arbitrator ruled that the employer selected that individual for promotion in violation of seniority provisions set out in the collective bargaining agreement [CBA].

Nassau County promoted Daniel J. Ciambriello to the non-competitive class position of Plant Maintenance Mechanic II [PMM-II]. Upon learning of Ciambriello's promotion, his collective bargaining representative, CSEA, filed a grievance with the County on behalf of four other employees - Ron Roeill, Eugene Romanger, Anthony Saponaro, and Joseph Scali - claiming that the County had promoted Ciambriello to PMM-II in violation of the seniority provisions set out in the CBA.

Although the grievance ultimately was submitted to arbitration, Ciambriello did not receive any notice of the grievance filed by CSEA, the arbitration, or any of the interven­ing steps, and as a result he did not participate in any of the grievance proceedings. CSEA and Nassau stipulated that the issues to be resolved by the arbitrator were:

1. Did the County violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it promoted Daniel Ciambriello to the position of PMM II? and

2. If so, what is the appropriate recommended remedy?

The arbitrator issued an advisory award holding that (1) the County had violated the CBA in promoting Ciambriello to PMM-II, (2) Ciambriello's position must be vacated and refilled within sixty days, and (3) the County must consider Roeill, Romanger, Saponaro, and Scali for the PMM-II position.

CSEA filed an Article 75 action to confirm the award. The County defaulted and State Supreme Court confirmed the award.

On March 6, 2000, Ciambriello was told that he was removed from the PMM-II position and would be reassigned to an Equipment Operator I [EO-I] position - the position that he had occupied prior to his promotion - effective March 10, 2000. Roeill was appointed to the PMM-II position

Ciambriello sued the County and CSEA, contending that his demotion in grade and re­sulting reduction in salary and benefits deprived him of a property interest without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ciambriello also contended that he was the victim of an "unlawful conspiracy" in violation of 42 USC 1983.

A federal district court judge summarily dismissed Ciambriello's petition, ruling that his promotion to PMM-II violated the CBA's seniority provision and thus could not be ef­fected. In the words of the district court:

Because the right sought to be protected here is a right finding no support in the CBA, it is not a right to which [Ciambriello] had a "legitimate claim of entitlement" and there­fore, not a property right upon which a Section 1983 claim can be sustained.

The Circuit Court said that while Nassau and CSEA contend that Ciambriello had no property interest in the PMM-II position because he was promoted in violation of the CBA, this issue could not be resolved at this point. Why not? Because, said the court, although CSEA and Nassau "may well prove that Ciambriello's promotion violated [the CAB] ... they cannot do so on the current record." Thus the District Court was premature in concluding that the CBA did not support Ciambriello?s property interest in the PMM-II position.

Reading the word "discipline" broadly to include any adverse personnel action, not simply dismissal or demotion, the Circuit Court decided that the CAB give Ciambriello "a substantive right not to be dismissed or demoted (or be subjected to any of the other disciplinary actions identified in [the CBA]) except in the event of incompetence or misconduct." Because, said the court, "the only permissible issues in a disciplinary arbi­tration are whether incompetence or misconduct existed, it naturally follows that the only permissible grounds for discipline are incompetence and misconduct."

Finding that Ciambriello served in the higher position for well over two years, only to be returned to his original position and salary, the court said that it did not have any trouble concluding that this right was a property right of sufficient importance to Ciambriello to warrant constitutional protection.

In the words of the court, "Ciambriello's expectation of continued employment in the PMM-II position rises to the level of a constitutionally protected property interest."

Accordingly, the court ruled that Ciambriello was entitled to a due process hearing under the terms of the CBA before he could be dismissed or demoted from his PMM-II position notwithstanding the arbitration award

According to the ruling, "the governmental interest in not providing a pre-demotion hearing is particularly minimal in this case because the County actually held a hearing prior to Ciambriello's demotion; it simply failed to invite Ciambriello's participation.

As to CSEA's role in the action, the Circuit Court said that although it has no particular interest in furthering the career of one employee at the expense of another, it undoubtedly has an interest in ensuring that the County complies with the collectively bargained for seniority provision in making promotions. Protecting that interest was only hindered by not including Ciambriello in the contract grievance proceeding.

The balance of these factors tips decidedly in favor of affording Ciambriello a pre-demo­tion hearing and the court decided that Ciambriello had to have notice of the charges CSEA argues that even if Ciambriello would otherwise have a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to being demoted, he waived that right (or, rather, his union waived it on his behalf).

The court rejected CSEA's theory, holding that "[a] public employee's right to a pre-deprivation hearing derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, not from any statute or regulation." citing Cleveland Board of Education v Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532.

Turning to Ciambriello charges of "conspiracy," CSEA argued that as a "labor union" is was not a "state actor" and thus could not be sued for its action under 42 USC 1983.

Ciambriello, on the other hand, contended that "CSEA acted under color of state law by conspiring with the County."

The court disagreed, holding that CSEA is not a state actor and Ciambriello did not al­leged sufficient facts to support the conclusion that it acted under color of state law.

The bottom line: the Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal of CSEA from the action with respect to Ciambriello's 42 USC 1983 claims but vacate the dismissal of his 42 USC 1983 claims against the Nassau County. The case was remanded to the federal district court for further consideration.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 28, 2008 (boomark / email).