Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

24 A.D.3d 224, 805 N.Y.S.2d 83

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 13, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 224 (Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board, 24 A.D.3d 224, 805 N.Y.S.2d 83 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), dated December 12, 2003, which reversed the decision of its Administrative Law Judge and dismissed petitioner’s improper labor practice charge in its entirety, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Harold Beeler, J.], entered on or about November 9, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

PERB’s determination that a follow-up medical appointment scheduled for petitioner’s union member was not an investigatory interview at which the employee was entitled to union representation was based upon its interpretation of the facts at the hearing, and not one that turned simply on statutory construction. Accordingly, the appropriate standard of review is whether there was substantial evidence to support PERB’s determination (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]). That standard was met by evidence showing that the purpose of the medical appointment was to assess the employee’s progress in relapse prevention education and was not disciplinary. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Determination of respondent New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), dated December 12, 2003, which reversed the decision of its Administrative Law Judge and dismissed petitioner’s improper labor practice charge in its entirety, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Harold Beeler, J.], entered on or about November 9, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

PERB’s determination that a follow-up medical appointment scheduled for petitioner’s union member was not an investigatory interview at which the employee was entitled to union representation was based upon its interpretation of the facts at the hearing, and not one that turned simply on statutory construction. Accordingly, the appropriate standard of review is whether there was substantial evidence to support PERB’s determination (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]). That standard was met by evidence showing that the purpose of the medical appointment was to assess the employee’s progress in relapse prevention education and was not disciplinary. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 224, 805 N.Y.S.2d 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/transport-workers-union-of-america-local-100-v-new-york-state-public-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack