From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Delmage v. Mahoney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 1996
224 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 26, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the order, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The petitioner, a Suffolk County Deputy Sheriff, was issued a written reprimand by an Under Sheriff without a hearing. The petitioner commenced this proceeding, alleging that this procedure violated his rights under Civil Service Law § 75 (2). He sought to have the written reprimand removed and expunged from his personnel file. The appellants contended that pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between Suffolk County and the Deputy Sheriffs Benevolent Association, of which petitioner was a member, the Sheriff had the power to issue a verbal or written reprimand without the necessity of a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75.

The court agreed with the petitioner, finding that there is no language in the collective bargaining agreement waiving the petitioner's right to a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75.

Although a contract provision may modify or replace the more traditional forms of judicial and/or statutory protection afforded public employees (see, Guilford v. City of Buffalo, 177 A.D.2d 971; Matter of Marin v. Benson, 131 A.D.2d 100; Matter of Stoker v. Tarentino, 101 A.D.2d 651; Matter of Dye v. New York City Tr. Auth., 88 A.D.2d 899, affd 57 N.Y.2d 917; Antinore v. State of New York, 49 A.D.2d 6, affd 40 N.Y.2d 921), such a provision must be clear and unambiguous in effecting the modification or replacement in order to be enforceable (see, Frontier Ins. Co. v State of New York, 197 A.D.2d 177, affd 87 N.Y.2d 864).

At bar, the collective bargaining agreement provides that "[a]ll permanent full time employees shall be entitled" to the Progressive Discipline Systems, which is contained in the county's Employee Disciplinary Manual. A review of the manual shows that it provides for separate disciplinary procedures for "those employees NOT entitled to a Section 75 Hearing as per Civil Service Law" and "those employees entitled to a Section 75 Hearing per Civil Service Law". The petitioner, as a person holding a position by permanent appointment in the competitive class of the classified civil service, is entitled to a Civil Service Law § 75 hearing as per the disciplinary manual and the Civil Service Law. Moreover, section 130-1 (A) of the Operations and Procedures Guide of the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department provides that "[d]iscipline and punishment determination against any member of the Department shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Law of the State of New York".

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the section of the disciplinary manual which applies to employees entitled to a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 also provides in pertinent part that "[i]f the department wishes to issue * * * a written reprimand, the procedures as stated under the first and second violations should be followed". However, the procedures set forth under the "first and second violations" were applicable only to those employees who were not entitled to a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 in disciplinary matters.

Thus, the collective bargaining agreement incorporates by reference a disciplinary manual whose provisions are ambiguous, and which conflicts with the provisions of the Operations and Procedures Guide specifically applicable to the Sheriff's Department. In light of these ambiguities and inconsistencies, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the petitioner, expressly or impliedly, waived his right to a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75. Moreover, the fact that the Sheriff's Department had a long-standing practice of issuing written reprimands without a hearing is irrelevant (see, Frontier Ins. Co. v. State of New York, supra). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Delmage v. Mahoney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 1996
224 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Matter of Delmage v. Mahoney

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BERTRAM W. DELMAGE, Respondent, v. PATRICK A. MAHONEY et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 26, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 66

Citing Cases

Seabrook v. City of New York

The employee protections embodied in sections 75 and 76 can be modified by the terms of a collective…

Ortlieb v. Lewis Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

Thus, the Sheriff had no legal right to terminate him.We reject respondents' contention that petitioner…