Treating groups in the collective bargaining unit differently does not always constitute to a violation of the union’s duty of fair representation

To contact us Click HERE

Treating groups in the collective bargaining unitdifferently does not always constitute to a violation of the union’s duty offair representationCalkins v Police Benevolent Assn. of N.Y. State Troopers,Inc., 55 AD3d 1328
Thomas E. Calkins and five other retired State Troopers wereamong some 72 retirees rehired as "Special Troopers" on a temporarybasis in 2001. They commenced this lawsuit in an effort to recover wage andbenefit increases negotiated by the Police Benevolent Association of New YorkState Troopers [PBA] pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)between it and the State of New York
Calkins charged the PBA violated its duty of fairrepresentation as the exclusive bargaining agent for the Special Troopers as aresult of the PBA excluding the Special Troopers from expanded duty pay andincreases in longevity pay in an effort to obtain a substantial increase inlongevity pay for the other State Troopers in the unit represented by the PBA.The Special Troopers’ exclusion was reflected in Memorandum of Agreement signedby the PBA and the State and subsequently ratified by PBA’s membership.
Supreme Court granted the PBA’s motion for summary judgmentdismissing the Calkins' action and Calkins appealed.
The Appellate Division commence its review of the appeal bynoting that in order “To establish that a bargaining agent breached its duty offair representation, a plaintiff must show that the bargaining agent's conduct wasarbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith,” citing Civil Service Bar Assn.,Local 237 v City of New York, 64 NY2d 188. To do so, said the court, thecomplaining party must provide substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action,or dishonest conduct, or evidence of discrimination that is intentional,severe, and unrelated to legitimate objectives of the collective bargainingrepresentative.
Here, however, the fact that the PBA treated the SpecialTroopers differently from other State Troopers represented by it in itsnegotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement does not amount to aviolation of the duty of fair representation. The court found that the PBA “metits initial burden on the motion by establishing that it undertook ‘agood-faith balancing of the divergent interests of its membership and [chose]to forgo benefits which may be gained for one class of employees in exchangefor benefits to other employees.’"
Further, said the Appellate Division, the recorddemonstrates that the PBA did not misrepresent its negotiating position. A"Contract Update" memorandum sent to its members expressly statedthat the Special Troopers were excluded from "all new monetary aspects ofthe contract."
As the record before it did not demonstrate that the PBA’sconduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, the Appellate Divisionsustained the lower court’s granting the PBA’s motion for summary judgment.
The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07368.htm