Relates to independent hearing officers for disciplinary hearings

If the parties are unable to agree upon a hearing officer, he or she shall he selected from a list of seven names to be provided by the Public Employee Relations Board. The Public Employee Relations Board shall select the hearing officer by alternately striking names from the list of seven. The hearing officer shall be vested with ail powers of the appointing authority, shall conduct and make a record of a hearing; and shall render a final decision.

Justification

Under current law, the appointing authority both brings charges and renders decisions in disciplinary proceedings. This obviously creates a conflict of interest and creates a situation inherently unfair to employees. This bill corrects this situation by providing for the appointment of an independent and neutral hearing officer who will hear charges and render a decision on behalf of the employer.

The bill provides that the light of public opinion will shine upon those instances where the accusation of wrongdoing against a public employee rises to the level of termination of employment. An impartial arbitrator, professional and experienced will render a determination free from the internal bruises that cloud the public's perception of public agency action.

To those who complained that the bill would interfere with the collective bargaining process, the bill is amended to provide that no such interference occurs. In fact, in some instances it ensures a right to collectively bargain procedures crafted for a particular type of public employment. In any event, the largest public employee union in the City of New York, District Council 7, already has a more extensive right by contract to mandatory binding arbitration of disciplinary matters and nothing draconian has occurred in the many years that the provision has been in existence, The rest of the public employees of the State should enjoy this same protection.

Finally, the bill has a safety mechanism to prevent its unwarranted use. For an employee to request binding arbitration under the provision of this bill, he or she must split half the cost of the arbitration with the municipality.

Further, if certain behavior of either party is found to be frivolous, the arbitrator may assign costs to the other party. This is a solid monetary discouragement to prevent abuse of this provision.

Legislative history

This bill is similar to previous bills pertaining to Independent Hearing Officers and dismissal procedures.

2007: S.6688 (VM 33) 2006: S.7903 (VM 285) 2005: A.6343 (VM 12) 2004: A.8099 (VM 12) 1997: S.6410 (VM 68)

Fiscal implications

The cost incurred in obtaining such independent hearing officer shall be divided equally between the parties; provided that the hearing officer is authorized to allocate circumstances of the case, the hearing officer is authorized to allocate such cost on the basis of the frivolous nature of any claim made or any defense interposed.

Effective date

First of March next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law and shall apply to proceeding commenced on or after such effective date; provided, however, that effective immediately, the addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for implementation of the provisions of this act on its effective date are authorized and directed to be made and completed on or before such effective date.