Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Ass’n v. County of Nassau, 68 N.Y.2d 881 (1986)
r
r
A collective bargaining agreement provision establishing a new, longer probationary period for employees cannot be applied retroactively to employees who have already completed their initial probationary period and attained permanent status.
r
r
Summary
r
This case concerns whether a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision establishing a one-year trial period, during which employees lack disciplinary protections, could be retroactively applied to an employee who had already completed their initial probationary period and attained permanent status under a prior CBA. The New York Court of Appeals held that the new provision could not be applied retroactively. The court reasoned that the new provision was intended to apply only to employees still within their initial probationary or trainee period, and therefore, the employee was entitled to the disciplinary protections afforded to permanent employees.
r
r
Facts
r
The petitioner was appointed as a Nassau County caseworker on November 9, 1984. He served a 16-week probationary period and received a permanent appointment on March 1, 1985. At the time of hiring, a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was in effect, granting employees who completed probation the protections of Civil Service Law § 75. This CBA expired on December 31, 1984, but its terms remained in effect during negotiations for a new contract. A new CBA, effective retroactively to January 1, 1985, was executed in April 1985. This agreement included a provision establishing a one-year trial period for all full-time employees, during which they would not have disciplinary protections. On June 27, 1985, the petitioner was discharged, effective July 3, 1985, without a written statement of charges or a hearing.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The petitioner initiated a proceeding for reinstatement and back pay, arguing he was wrongly denied the protections afforded by statute. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that the new CBA provision constituted a valid, negotiated waiver of rights under Civil Service Law §§ 75 and 76. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, reinstating the Supreme Court’s judgment.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a collective bargaining agreement provision establishing a one-year trial period without disciplinary protections for new employees can be retroactively applied to an employee who had already completed their probationary service and attained permanent employee status under the provisions of a prior collective bargaining agreement.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the new contractual provision establishing a one-year trial period without disciplinary protections was intended to apply only to employees who were still within their “probationary or trainee period” and cannot be retroactively applied to an employee who had already attained permanent status.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the plain language of the new CBA provision indicated it was intended to apply only to employees still within their initial