New York Law Review

Tag: administrative law judge

  • Civil Service Employees Ass’n v. Public Employment Relations Board, 73 N.Y.2d 796 (1988): Scope of PERB Review

    73 N.Y.2d 796 (1988)

    The Public Employment Relations Board’s (PERB) review of an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision is limited to matters included in the original charge or developed at the formal hearing; any exception to the ALJ’s ruling not specifically raised is waived.

    Summary

    This case addresses the permissible scope of review by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) of an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision in an improper practice charge. Luis Diaz filed a charge against his union, CSEA, which was initially framed as gross negligence or bad faith in handling his grievance. After the ALJ dismissed the charges, PERB found CSEA liable for inadequate training and support, issues not raised in the original charge. The Court of Appeals held that PERB improperly based its decision on issues not included in Diaz’s original charge or exceptions to the ALJ’s order, limiting PERB’s review to matters properly raised and preserved.

    Facts

    Luis Diaz, an employee, was assisted by Vito Bertini, a CSEA grievance representative, in filing a grievance. Due to errors by Bertini and other CSEA representatives, the grievance was not timely filed and was dismissed. Diaz was subsequently terminated from his employment. Diaz then filed an improper practice charge against CSEA with PERB.

    Procedural History

    The ALJ framed Diaz’s charges as allegations of gross negligence, bad faith, and failure to seek court review. The ALJ dismissed all charges after a hearing. PERB confirmed the dismissal of the originally framed charges but found CSEA liable for the separate infraction of gross negligence in failing to adequately train Bertini, which was not included in the original charge. The Appellate Division reversed PERB’s decision. PERB appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether PERB can base its decision on issues of inadequate training and support when those issues were not raised in the original charge filed by the employee or included in the employee’s exceptions to the ALJ’s order.

    Holding

    No, because PERB’s review of the ALJ’s decision is limited to matters included in the original charge or developed at the formal hearing. Any exception to the ALJ’s ruling not specifically raised is waived.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that PERB’s review is limited to the scope of the charges presented by the complaining party. The Court emphasized that neither the amended details of the charge nor the ALJ’s statement of the charge included allegations of inadequate training or insufficient organizational support. Furthermore, Diaz’s attorney did not specify a charge of inadequate training or organizational support in his exceptions to the ALJ’s order, as required by PERB’s Rules of Procedure (4 NYCRR 204.10). The court cited Matter of Margolin v. Newman, 130 AD2d 312, for the proposition that any exception to the ALJ’s ruling not specifically raised is waived. The court stated: “PERB’s review of the ALJ’s decision is limited to matters included in the original charge or developed at the formal hearing. Any exception to the ALJ’s ruling not specifically raised is waived (see, Matter of Margolin v Newman, 130 AD2d 312, appeal dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 844; 4 NYCRR 204.10 [b] [4]). Therefore it was improper for PERB to base its decision on inadequate training and support when these issues were not raised in Diaz’s charges or included in his exceptions to the ALJ’s order.”