Posted on May 28, 2009 by Kevin Sheerin

The ongoing debate about residency requirements for city workers

This week, Lisa Colangelo, writes about the ongoing controversy concerning residency requirements for city employees. Many city workers are no longer required to live within the five boroughs of New York City. All uniformed workers – police officers, firefighters, correction officers and sanitation officers – are allowed to live in the surrounding counties and north in New York State. The city’s largest union, District Council 37, recently won the right to live outside of city limits. Now several other unions, including Teamsters Local 237 and Communication Workers of America Local 1180, are pushing to get residency requirements lifted by ways of a bill, Intro. 992. Some individuals feel that residency requirements should be eliminated all together for the sake of fairness but this suggestion does not sit well with the city.

Read full article here.

To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on May 27, 2009 by Kevin Sheerin

Civil Service Commission Appeal Guidelines

Any individual or entity who feels that they have been aggrieved by an action or decision of the President of the Civil Service Commission may file an appeal to the Commission.

The aggrieved party (“appellant”) should submit the appeal with all necessary supporting documents, in writing, according to the deadlines pertaining to the subject of the appeal. The appeal should include a copy of the final determination letter from the Commission as well as any documents and information supporting appellant’s appeal. If unsure of the statute or time restrictions on the appeal, appellants should file with the Commission within thirty days of receiving the written determination.

After receiving an appeal, the Commission will send out an Acknowledgment of Appeal and process the appeal internally. Once they have received all relevant information, the Commission will notify appellant that the appeal will be presented to the Commission. The Commission generally considers an appeal based on the papers submitted. The appellant may request to appear before the Commission to present their appeal and if the Commission agrees, they will inform appellant, in writing, of the date, time and place of the appeal.

The appellant may appear before the Commission with or without representation. If the appellant choices to appear with a representative, they will be provided the opportunity to present arguments in support of their positions. The proceedings are informal and formal rules of evidence do not apply. No oaths are administered and individuals are not subject to cross-examination. If the appellant or their representative fails to appear at the scheduled hearing, the appeal will be determined based on the appellant’s written submissions.

After all evidence and arguments have been presented, the Commission will deliberate and determine whether to grant or deny the appeal. All final decisions will be made in writing. The Commission will mail the appellant a copy of the final decision as well as posting it on the Commission’s public website.

Read the full guidelines here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on May 13, 2009 by Kevin Sheerin

CBA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing Article 78 petition

Contract grievance procedures must be exhausted before a grievance is ripe for consideration by the courts

Contract grievance procedures must be exhausted before a grievance is ripe for consideration by the courts
Matter of Julicher v Town of Tonawanda, 2009 NY Slip Op 03273, Decided on April 24, 2009, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Dismissed from his position, Joseph J. Julicher filed a grievance in accordance with the grievance and arbitration procedure set out in the relevant the collective bargaining agreement between the Tonawanda and Julicher’s union. Before completing the grievance and arbitration procedure in which he challenged his termination by the Town, Julicher filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 in an effort to obtain a court order annulling his dismissal.

The Appellate Division said that Supreme Court’s granting Julicher’s petition was incorrect and unanimously reversed the lower court’s ruling and dismissed Julicher’s lawsuit.

The Appellate Division said that "[W]here[, as here], a collective bargaining agreement requires that a particular dispute be resolved pursuant to a grievance procedure, an employee's failure to grieve will constitute a failure to exhaust [administrative remedies], thereby precluding relief under CPLR Article 78."

Although Julicher commenced the grievance and arbitration procedure pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, he failed to complete the procedure before commencing legal action and thus he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

N.B. In this instance, the grievant filed the petition seeking judicial relief pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. Presumably any challenge to an arbitrator’s determination, had the grievant not discontinued his or her participation in the grievance procedure, would have been brought pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03273.htm
Originally posted By Public Employment Law Press on Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Tags: , ,