State v. N.Y.S. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd., 528017

• Decision Date: 24 October 2019
• Docket Number: 528017
• Citation: 176 A.D.3d 1460,112 N.Y.S.3d 300
• Parties: In the Matter of STATE of New York, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

176 A.D.3d 1460

112 N.Y.S.3d 300

In the Matter of STATE of New York, Petitioner,

v.NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al., Respondents.

528017

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: September 3, 2019

Decided and Entered: October 24, 2019

Michael N. Volforte, Governor's Office of Employee Relations, Albany (Clay J. Lodovice of counsel), for petitioner.

David P. Quinn, Public Employment Relations Board, Albany, for Public Employment Relations Board, respondent.

Edward J. Aluck, New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL–CIO, Albany (John D. Svare of counsel), for New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL–CIO, respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Pritzker, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Public Employment Relations Board finding that petitioner committed an improper employer practice.

Petitioner and respondent Public Employees Federation, AFL–CIO (hereinafter PEF) were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the CBA) from April 2011 to April 2015. PEF represents state employees in the Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Unit pertaining to a variety of employment and benefit-related issues, including employees who work at the Rochester Psychiatric Center (hereinafter RPC), a treatment facility overseen by the Office of Mental Health. Since 1982, RPC has implemented a policy wherein employees are not routinely required to submit doctor certificates for absences from work due to illness or injury, with the exception of six specified reasons that "management will require that a doctor's certificate be submitted." In December 2012, Christopher Kiristis, director of nursing at RPC, sent an email to the entire nursing staff stating that the administration had concerns over the coverage needs of its patients and that last minute employee call-outs from work created a high demand for mandatory coverage. As such, a policy change was implemented — as set forth in Kiristis' email — that "[l]ast minute call [ins] will require documentation supporting the [rationale] for the absence" for specified time periods during the 2012–2013 holiday season.

In response, PEF filed an improper practice charge with respondent Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter PERB) alleging that petitioner violated Civil Service Law § 209–a(1)(d) by, among other things, unilaterally imposing a requirement that all employees submit medical documentation for unscheduled absences from work during the holiday season — a disciplinary work rule restricting employees' access to sick leave. Petitioner answered and, after a two-day hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) determined that it violated Civil Service Law § 209–a(1)(d) and ordered, among other things, that petitioner cease and desist from implementing the new requirement. Upon administrative appeal, PERB upheld the ALJ's determination. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul PERB's determination. PERB joined issue and interposed a counterclaim seeking to enforce its remedial order. Upon stipulation of the parties, Supreme Court transferred the matter to this Court, as it raises a substantial evidence question (see CPLR 7803[4] ; 7804[g] ).

Initially, we reject petitioner's assertion that PERB should have exercised a jurisdictional or merits deferral. Turning first to PERB's jurisdictional deferral policy, "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. Hence, when the parties' agreement provides the charging party with a reasonably arguable source of right with respect to the subject matter of the charge, PERB has either dismissed the improper practice charge outright or conditionally dismissed the charge pursuant to its jurisdictional deferral policy" ( Matter of City of New Rochelle v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 101 A.D.3d 1438, 1440–1441, 956 N.Y.S.2d 663 [2012] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 857, 2013 WL 2436297 [2013] ; see Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 16 A.D.3d 819, 819, 791 N.Y.S.2d 668 [2005] ). Here, the parties' CBA is silent on the issue of requiring doctor certificates for sick leave during the holidays, which is the subject of PEF's improper practice charge (see Matter of County of Saratoga v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 21 A.D.3d 1160, 1163, 802 N.Y.S.2d 257 [2005] ). Thus, because PEF alleged that petitioner violated statutory rights under Civil Service Law § 209–a(1)(d) by failing to bargain over a past practice that was not expressly covered by the CBA (see id. ; Matter of County of Erie v. State of New York, 14 A.D.3d 14, 16, 785 N.Y.S.2d 130 [2004] ), the "matter is not a breach of contract dispute and PERB's jurisdictional limitation was not triggered" ( Matter of County of Saratoga v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 21 A.D.3d at 1163, 802 N.Y.S.2d 257 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted] ).

Similarly, PERB properly declined to exercise a merits deferral, which, in contrast to a jurisdictional deferral, "utilizes agreed-upon binding arbitration to determine contractual grievances in furtherance of the stated goal of the Taylor Law to encourage employers and public employees to agree upon dispute resolution procedures. Application of the policy results in a conditional dismissal, meaning that the improper practice charge remains subject to being reopened before PERB after the conclusion of the arbitration process" ( Matter of Westchester County Dept. of Pub. Safety Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 99 A.D.3d 1155, 1156, 953 N.Y.S.2d 709 [2012] [citations omitted] ). Although PERB recognized that a provision in the CBA may have warranted a merits deferral of the matter at the outset by the ALJ, PERB ultimately concluded that doing so after the administrative hearing in which the parties had already furnished their proof would waste time and resources and essentially allow petitioner to relitigate the dispute at the conclusion of this administrative proceeding. Given that the "merits deferral policy has been judicially recognized in the past and the courts have generally deferred to PERB's interpretation" ( Matter of Westchester County Dept. of Pub. Safety Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 99 A.D.3d at 1156, 953 N.Y.S.2d 709 [internal citations omitted] ), PERB's decision not to invoke such policy here was proper under the circumstances (see generally Matter of County of Saratoga v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 21 A.D.3d at 1164, 802 N.Y.S.2d 257 n).

Turning to the merits, the two salient issues are: (1) whether petitioner had an obligation to collectively bargain with PEF concerning the new restriction it imposed on sick leave during the 2012–2013 holiday season; and (2) if such an obligation existed, whether petitioner satisfied its duty owed to PEF. In reviewing these issues, our inquiry is "limited to whether [PERB's decision] is supported by substantial evidence which, in turn, depends upon whether there exists a rational basis in the record as a whole to support the findings upon which such determination is based" ( Matter of Manhasset Union Free School Dist. v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 61 A.D.3d 1231, 1233–1234, 877 N.Y.S.2d 497 [2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted] ). "PERB is accorded deference in matters falling within its area of expertise such as cases involving the issue of mandatory or prohibited bargaining subject" ( Matter of Town of Islip v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 23 N.Y.3d 482, 492, 991 N.Y.S.2d 583, 15 N.E.3d 338 [2014] [internal quotations marks and citations omitted] ).

We turn first to whether petitioner had an obligation to collectively bargain with PEF concerning the new restriction. A public employer will violate Civil Service Law § 209–a(1) if it alters a past practice that impacts a mandatorily negotiable subject (see Matter of Aeneas McDonald...