Will a Court Entertain a Discovery Request in a 3020-a Proceeding Before a Final Award is Made?

No. Many times when faced with a disciplinary hearing the parties require information from each other to prepare for the case. While the Education Law provides an affirmative obligation to provide such material the guidelines for the issuance of such a discovery order from an arbitrator are not clear.

In this case the School District sought some emails from a teacher. The arbitrator refused to order the teacher to turn them over so the District went to Supreme Court to seek redress.

Justice Donald A. Greenwood ruled that a court order in such a situation was improper since the statute only allowed the court to review final arbitration determinations.

It is important in such cases to make the application on the record to preserve any issue for appeal.

In the Matter of the Application of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District and the Board of Education thereof, Petitioners, For an Order Pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR Vacating the Hearing Officer’s Decision, against Anonymous, a Tenured Administrator, Respondent. Sup. Ct., Onondaga County, October 16, 2012. Index No. 2012-3582.


Is the UFT required to submit contract changes or a proposed contract to the membership for ratification?

No. With the recent announcement that the UFT has agreed with the mayor to give-back ATR rights and study sabbaticals the issue is raised as to whether this “agreement” must be sent to the membership or even the Delegate Assembly for ratification. It is long been known in New York public sector legal circles that ratification votes, unless called for in a union’s constitution or by-laws, are not legally required by New York State Labor Law.

In 1973 Julius Ward, a non-member of the bargaining unit, petitioned the Court to invalidate a ratification vote of his unit for a new contract between Nassau County and the CSEA. The Court went through the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act (the Taylor Law) to determine if there were any provision requiring votes of all members of a bargaining unit.

The Court determined that not only were there no requirements that non-union members vote in ratification votes but there was no requirement to hold a ratification vote at all.

So, why does the UFT conduct any ratification vote at all if it is not required by law?

It is clear that the UFT, as all public sector unions, is very politically sensitive. The ratification vote on full contracts has become common practice even if it isn’t required. However, this does not prevent the whittling away of teacher rights, without ratification votes, in the interim.

N.B. Civil Service Law 204-a provides that where an agreement is submitted to the membership a notice (reading out loud at a meeting and printing on any proposed agreement) must be provided that the agreement which requires additional funding will not be effective until a legislative body a provided for the funds.

In the Matter of Julius Wald, Petitioner, v. Nassau Chapter Civil Service Employees Assn., Inc., et al., Respondents, Supreme Court of New York, Special Term, Nassau County, 72 Misc. 2d 723; 340 N.Y.S.2d 451; 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2235; 82 L.R.R.M. 2972, February 9, 1973