AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
In the Matter of the Arbitration : Re: Ol 17 0003 0535
(Usher Piller}
between
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION
(AEL-CIO),
DECISION AND
and - AWARD
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
(NYS Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance)
BEFORE: Mary L. Crangle, Arbitrator
APPEARANCES:
For the Union: John F. Kershko, Esq.
For the Employer: John T. Nieckar2 111, Human
Resources Specialist 2, Labor
Relations
Peter NW. Sinclair, Associate
Counsel, Office of Legal
Affairs
The Public Employees Federation ("PEF” or “Wnion”) is
the collective bargaining representative of a unit of
professional, scientific and technical services employees
working for the State of New York, including those holding
the title of Management Specialist 2. PEF and the State ofNew York (“State”) are parties to a collective bargaining
agreement (“Agreement”) that, in relevant part, provides
for the arbitration of unresolved disciplinary grievances.
Pursuant to that Agreement, the parties appeared before the
undersigned Arbitrator on November 7, 2017, February 12,
2018, April 19, 2018, August 27, 2018, November 6, 2019,
November 12, 2019 and November 13, 2019 for hearings on the
grievance described below."
The arbitrator was selected pursuant to the procedures
set forth in the Agreement. The parties presented evidence
and argument, engaged in the examination and cross-
examination of sworn/affirmed witnesses, and otherwise
supported their respective positions.’ The record was
declared closed on January 7, 2020 upon the arbitrators
receipt of the parties’ post-hearing written submissions.
The Grievant, Usher Piller (“Grievant” or “Piller”) is
employed as a Management Specialist 2 in the New York State
Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (“OTDA"). The
Grievant is assigned to an OTDA office in New York City
' In addition I conducted an in person conference with the parties’ representatives on
July 26, 2018 to address evidentiary issues. The hiatus in hearing dates between August
‘of 2018 and November of 2019 was due to the unavailability of the Grievant's counsel
during that time.
? On November 11, 2019] issued an Interim Decision in writing in this matter
reaffirming my oral ruling sustaining the Gricvant’s objection to the use of his swipe
records in this proceeding. [ incorporate this Interim Decision in my Decision and
‘Award herein,where he works in the program integrity unit, investigating
clients te detect amy receipt of duplicative benefits. The
Grievant has 38 years of service and no disciplinary
record.* He is also a union representative.
The Grievant was served with a Notice of Discipline
dated March 23, 2017 that reads as follows:?
NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE
1) You are guilty of misconduct for violating OTDA's
Electronic Mail Use Policy, found in Chapter 4, Section
8, of OTDA's Administrative Policies and Procedures
Manual (APPM), which states that, “Office e-mail service
is provided exclusively for necessary business and not
for the personal use of employees” and “excessive
personal use of e-mail of use of e-mail for private
business or employment may subject employees to
disciplinary action.”
Specifically, from March 25, 2016 through March 19,
2017, you used the Office’s e-mail to draft, send and/or
receive approximately 6,176 e-mails, which were for your
personal use and/or private business. (Copies of which
are attached as “Exhibit a.”)
2} You are guilty of misconduct for violating OTDA’s Proper
Use of State Equipment policy found in Chapter L,
Section 35 of the APPM which states that, “OTDA
computers shall be used only for official state
business”.
Specifically, from March 25, 2016 through March 19,
2017, you used your state-issued computer to draft, send
and/or receive approximately 6,176 e-mails, which were
* While the State alleged in its closing arguments that the Grievant had previously been
the subject of NODs issued in 1988 and in 1998, no evidence of this was ineluded in the
record, and find no reference to such in State Exhibit 25 in evidence,
“The Grievant raised a number of procedural issues by Motion to Dismiss at the
hearings concerning service of the NOD including allegations that the Grievant was not
served with two copies of the NOD and that the exhibits neferenced therein were served
electronically by flash drive, I denied the Motions and reiterate my decision herein3)
4)
5)
not official State business. (Copies of which are
attached as “Exhibit A.”)
You are guilty of misconduct for violating OTDA’s Proper
Use of State Equipment policy found in Chapter 1,
Section 35 of the APPM which states that, “OTDA
computers shall be used only for official state
business.”
Specifically, from March 25, 2016 through March 13,
2017, you created, opened, or modified 226 files on your
state-issued computer and/or network drive which were
not for official State business. (The names and
locations of these files are identified in the Excel
Spread Sheet attached as “Exhibit B.”)
You are guilty of insubordination for failing to follew
directives te not use the Office's email service and
State’s equipment for union related activities. On
February 12, 2013, Andrew Georgiades, directed you to
not use the Office's equipment for union business. on
January 13, 2011, Andrew Georgiades sent you an email
directing you to refrain from using agency issued
equipment to conduct union business. On January 27,
2000, Gary Martinus sent you a memo directing you to
cease use of the Agency’s email system to circulate
correspondences among union members
Specifically, from March 25, 2016 through March 19,
2017, you drafted, sent and/or received union related
emails using the Office's email service. (Copies of
which are included in the “Exhibit A.”)
Specifically, from March 25, 2016 through March 15,
2017, you created, opened, modified or saved 186 files
on your state-issued computer and/or network drive and
which were union related. (The names and locations of
these files are identified in the Excel Spread Sheet
attached as “Exhibit B.”)
You are guilty of misconduct for violating OTDA's Time
Card Processing policy found in Chapter 1, Section 26
III(C) of the APPM which states that, “Employees are
responsible for the maintenance of their own attendance
yecords (time card or Time and Accrual Record). They
are required to account for arrivals and departures by
assuring that the hours on the attendance record
accurate reflect the working hour for each day.”6)
7)
8)
Specifically, from March 24, 2016 to March 8, 2017, the
attendance records (a.k.a. timesheets, time cards or
time and accrual records} you completed and submitted
did not accurately reflect your arrivals and/or
departures and the hours you worked on the dates
identified in the Excel Spread Sheet attached as
“Exhibit c.”
You are guilty of misconduct for violating OTDA's
Attendance and Leave policies found in Article III (1)
of OTDA's Employee Handbook, which states that, “The
time and accrual record is the legal document upon which
the paycheck is based. Any falsification of the record
is a serious offense and is grounds for disciplinary
action”.
Specifically, from March 24, 2016 to March @, 2017, you
falsified your time and accrual records (a.k.a.
timesheets, time cards or attendance records) when you
certified that you worked hours that you did not work on
the dates identified in the Excel Spread Sheet attached
as “Exhibit C.”
You are guilty of misconduct as defined in Chapter 3,
Section 1 (IV) of the APPM which states that, miscenduct
includes “such acts as . . . fraudulent practices.”
Specifically, you knowingly completed and submitted an
attendance record (a.k.a. timesheet, time card, or time
and accrual record) in which you represented that you
worked 7.5 hours on August 17, 2016, in erder to obtain
a tinancial benefit, when in fact, you did not work at
all that day.
You are guilty of misconduct as defined in Chapter 3,
Section I({IV) of the APPM which states that, misconduct
includes “such acts as . . . fraudulent practices.”
Specifically, you intentionally completed and submitted
attendance records (a.k.a. timesheets, time cards or
time and accrual records) in which you misrepresented
your hours worked in order to obtain financial benefit,
to wit, from December 23, 2016 to Maren 3, 2017, you
represented on your attendance records that you worked
hours that you did not work on the dates identified in
the Excel Spread Sheet attached as “Exhibit C.”Your misrepresentations were intentional because on
December 22, 2016, your supervisor, Andrew Georgiades,
directed you to arrive in the office at your work
station on time (9:30 a.m.) each day and to leave the
office per your work schedule ("-Th. 6:30 p.m. and
Fridays 1:00 p.m.}. Mr. Georgiades also informed you
that when arriving late you should submit your leave
requests timely and you were no longer allowed to “stay
late” to make up for your late arrivals
9) You are guilty of misconduct for violating Section
175.05(L)of the Penal Law of the State of New York,
entitled, “Falsifying Business Records in the Second
Degree” which states that: “A person is guilty of
falsifying business records in the second degree when,
with intent to defraud he: makes or causes a false entry
in the business records of an enterprise.”
Specifically, with intent to defraud your employer, you
completed and submitted an attendance record (a.k.a.
timesheet, time card, or time and accrual record) in
which you represented that you worked 7.5 hours on
August 17, 2016, when in fact, you did not work at all
that day.
0} You are guilty of misconduct for violating Section
175.05(1)of the Penal Law of the State of New York,
entitled, “falsifying Business Records in the Second
Degree” which states that: “A person is guilty of
falsifying business records in the second degree when,
with intent to defraud he: makes or causes a false entry
in the business records of un enterprise.”
Specifically, with intent to defraud your employer, you
submitted falsified attendance records (a.k.a.
timesheets, time cards, or time and accrual records}
from December 23, 2016 to March 8, 2017, in which you
represented that you worked hours that you did not work
on the dates identified in the Excel Spread Sheet
attached as “Exhibit Cc.”
You are subject to discipline for your misconduct based
on Article II, Section @ of OTDA’s Smployee Handbook
which states that, “Employees are required to obey all
federal, State and local laws . . . Any violation of law
and/or policy may result in disciplinary action.”Your actions demonstrate an intent to defraud because on
December 22, 2016, your supervisor, Andrew Georgiades,
directed you to arrive in the office at your work
station on time (9:30 a.m.) each day and to leave the
office per your work schedule (M-Th. 6:30 p.m. and
Fridays 1:00 p.m.). Mr. Georgiades also informed you
that when arriving late you should submit your leave
requests timely and you were ne longer allowed to *
late” to make up for your late arrivals.
11)You are guilty of misconduct for vielating Section
175.35(1) of the Penal Law of the State of New York,
entitled “Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the
First Degree” which states that: “a person is guilty of
offering a false instrument for filing in the first
degree when: knowing that a written instrument contains
a false statement or false information, and with intent
te defraud the State . he or she offers or presents
it to a public office . . . with the knowledge or belief
that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or
otherwise become a part of the records of such public
office.”
Specifically, with intent to defraud your employer (the
State of New York) you offered or submitted an
attendance record (a.k.a. timesheet, time card, or time
and accrual record) knowing that it contained false
information, to wit, that you worked 7.5 hours on August
17, 2016, when in fact, you did not work at all on that
aay.
12)You are guilty of misconduct for violating Section
175.35(1) of the Penal Law of the State of New York,
entitled “Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the
First Degree” which states that: “a person is guilty of
offering a false instrument for filing in the first
degree when: knowing that a written instrument contains
a false statement or false information, and with intent
to defraud the state . . . he or she offers or presents
it to a public office . . . with the knowledge or belief
that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or
otherwise become a part of the records of such public
office.”
Specifically, with intent to defraud your employer (the
State of New York) you offered or submitted attendance
records (a.k.a timesheets, time cards, or time andaccrual records) from December 23, 2016 to March 8,
2017, in which you represented that you worked hours
that you did not work on the dates identified in the
Excel Spread Sheet attached as “Exhibit C.”
Your actions demonstrate an intent to defraud because on
December 22, 2016, your supervisor, Andrew Georgiades,
directed you to arrive in the office at your work
station on time (9:30 a-m.} each day and to leave the
office per your work schedule (M-Th. 6:30 p.m. and
Fridays 1:00 p.m.}. Mr. Georgiades also informed you
that when arriving late you should submit your leave
requests timely and you were no longer allowed to “stay
late” te make up for your late arrivals.
13)¥ou are guilty of insubordination for failing to follow
directives concerning the hours you are permitted to be
in the workplace.
Specifically, on December 22, 2016, your supervisor,
Andrew Georgiades, directed you te arrive in the office
at your work station on time (9:30 a.m.) each day and to
leave the office per your work schedule (N-Th. 6:30 p.m.
and Fridays 1:00 p.m.}. In disregard of this directive,
you arrived at the workplace before your official start
time, and/or remained in the workplace after you
official end time on the dates identified in the Excel
Spread Sheet attached as “Exhibit c.~
Despite many attempts on the part of your
supervisor and matiayers to assist you in correcting your
patterns of misconduct, your behavior has continued,
unabated. Your personal actions described above
constitute misconduct and a significant breach of trust.
As a result, termination of your employment is the only
appropriate penalty.
The Grievant as also suspended without pay on
March 20, 2017, amended by the employer to April 13,
2017, the date of service of the Notice of Discipline,
because “a determination was made that there is probablecause that your continued presence on the jeb represents
@ potential danger to persons or property or would
severely interfere with operations”.
A timely grievance was filed by the Union
contesting the Notice of Discipline as well as the
immediate suspension and the instant proceeding ensured.
The parties agreed that the following are the
issues to be decided by me in this matter
1, Did the employer prove quilt of the charges and
just cause to discipline the grievant as alleged
in the NOD dated March 23, 2017?
2, If so, what, if any, penalty is appropriate?
3. Did the employer prave probable cause to suspend
the grievant without pay effective March 20,
2017 {amended by the Employer to april 19,
2017)?
DECISION
The Charges in this matter can be divided into two
eategories. Charges 1 through 4 concern the Grievant's
alleged improper use of State equipment, and particularly
his use of his OTDA computer and GTDA e-mail for other than
official business. Charges 5 through 13 concern theGrievant's alleged misconduct with respect to his time and
attendance. I will address these categories separately.
The credible evidence in this matter substantiates the
allegations in Charges 1 through 4 that the Grievant sent
or received over 6,000 emails over the one year period
specified that had no relation to his employment. About
one-third of these emails that the Grievant received were
from many different subscription services such as The
Jerusalem Post, the Albany Times Union, Capalbo’s Gift
Baskets, Extended Stay, Iceland Review on Line, Linkedin,
and Unity Coalition for Israel. None of these emails bore
any relationship to the Grievant's job duties or the
mission of OTDA, ‘The Grievant's use of his OTDA e-mail
account to receive these emails was clearly improper. The
Grievant was using his OTDA email address as if it were his
personal account. This non-business use was contrary to
OTDA policy and far exceeded the incidental or necessary
personal purposes allowed by policy.
The Grievant asserts that he should not be held
responsible for many of these emails because they were
unsolicited and/or they arrived in his inbox during non-
work hours. I disagree. The Grievant had to have initially
contacted these sites in order for the emails to continue
Most, if not all, of these emails indicated that theGrievant was receiving them as a subscriber and offered the
option of unsubscribing. The Grievant never availed himself
of that opportunity and therefore the reasonable inference
is that he sought and welcomed these emails into his OTDA
email account. The timing of receipt is irrelevant.
The Grievant also received and/or sent over 4,500
emails using his OTDA email account during the period cited
in the NOD related to union matters that had nething to do
with his employment at OTDA.' The Grievant was a Council
leader for PEF during this time period. His union
responsibilities included agencies other than OTDA, and
namely the Office of Children and Family Services
(“OCFS”) and the Office ef the Medicaid Inspector General
(“OMIG“). The Grievant had both personal and PEF email
accounts during this time period although he again used his
ODA email account fer correspondence related to non-OTDA
unien matters. His non-business use of his OTDA computer
and email was contrary te OTDA policy and contrary to
explicit directives he had been given not to use OTDA email
for union activities.
Finally the record evidence establishes that the
Grievant used his OTDA email account for over 300 emails of
* None of the emails that are at issue in this matter concem the Grievant's use of his
OTDA computer for union issues related to OTDA matters. The State permitted such
use.
11a personal nature during the time period cited in the NOD.
Again, this personal use was contrary to OTDA policy and
far exceeded the incidental or necessary personal purposes
permitted by policy.
Accordingly, I find that the State has proven by the
requisite preponderance of the evidence the factual
allegations in Charges 1 and 2 of the NOD and that the
Geievant’s actions alleged therein constituted misconduct
Charges 1 and 2 of the NOD are sustained.
In Charge 3 the State alleges that the Grievant used
his OTDA computer to create, apen or modify 226 files that
were not work related. The record evidence establishes
that these files contained such materials as photographs,
articles, videos, personal correspondence, union documents
and correspondence, union flyers and press releases,
minutes of union meetings, as well as a number of files in
a language other than English, none of which were related
to the Grievant's job responsibilities. I find that the
State has proven, by the requisite preponderance of the
evidence, the factual allegations in Charge 3 and that the
Grievant engaged in misconduct as a result. The Grievant’s
conduct violated OTPA policy. Charge 3 is sustained.
Charge 4 alleges that the Grievant was insubordinate
when he used his OTDA computer for union activities during
Rthe time period cited in the NOD after having been directed
not to do so. The record evidence establishes that in
February of 2013 the Grievant’s supervisor, Andrew
Georgiades, met with the Grievant and informed him that he
was not permitted to use of his work computer and work
email address for union business. The Grievant had been
previously warned to cease this conduct in January of 2011
and in January of 2000. Furthermore, the OTDA
Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (“APPM”)
clearly states that OTDA computers are to be used only for
official State business and that they may not be used for
non-work related purposes including for personal purpeses
or outside activities. The Grievant was reminded of this by
bulletin number 15-08 sent to all OTDA employees, including
the Grievant, on March 12, 2015, and again by bulletin 16-
10 on March $, 2016 and bulletin 17-8 on March 2, 2017.
The Grievant was clearly aware of these policies yet
blatantly chese to disregard them and was insubordinate as
a result. The Grievant testified in this proceeding that he
believed that all union communications are “official state
business” and that there could be no lawful restriction en
his use of his OTDA work computer te communicate about
union issues, even those that are unrelated to OTDA. The
Grievant further testified that he had “a good faith
1Bbelief” that his use of his OTDA computer and email for
union related communications was justified and permissible.
The Grievant is mistaken. If the Grievant believed that he
should be permitted to use his OTDA computer and the OTDA
e-mail system for non-OTDA union business, he could have
used remedies available te him to contest the directives he
was given. Rather, the Grievant simply decided that his
employer’s policies and directives were not applicable to
him and blatantly disregarded them. The State has proven by
the requisite preponderance of the evidence that the
Grievant was insubordinate as a result. Charge 4 is
sustained.
Charges 5 through 13 deal with the Grievant's time and
attendance. During the time period at issue in the NOD, the
Grievant was scheduled to work from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Monday through Thursday, and from 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on
Friday. The Grievant’s time and attendance records are
maintained and completed by the Grievant for each pay
period in an electronic system (“LATS”), and prior to May
of 2016 were maintained in ACTS, and were expected to be
accurate. Employees certify that their attendance records
are accurate when they are submitted electronically. The
testimony of the Grievant's supervisor establishes that the
Grievant refused to adhere to his assigned schedule and
14routinely came in late, and then stayed late during the
time peried at issue in the NOD. The Grievant did not
dispute this testimony. The Grievant’s supervisor also
testified that when he would confront the Grievant about
coming in late, the Grievant would challenge him and then
continue his pattern ef arriving well beyond his scheduled
report time. The record evidence establishes that on
December 22, 2016 the Grievant was informed in writing by
Georgiades that he could not longer come in at 10:30 a.m.
and stay late “to make up” his late arrival. The Grievant
was specifically advised at that time to be at his work
station on time at 9:30 a.m. and te leave the office in
accordance with his scheduled departure time. He was also
instructed to complete leave requests promptly if he came
in late.
The Grievant's time records for the period of time
addressed in the NOD, and in evidence, indicate that on the
days that the Grievant was at work, he arrived at 9:30 a.m.
and departed at 5:30 p.m. The Grievant, however,
acknowledged that he continued to adhere to his own
preferred work schedule rather than the work schedule he
was assigned and the work schadule he certified to as
accurate on his time and accrual records. The Grievant
acknowledged in his testimony that he continued te arrive
15at work at 10:30 a.m. rather than his assigned time of 9:30
a.m. because he needed that time to work on union related
matters and he then would stay until 6:30 p.m. to make up
the time. The Grievant further testified that,
notwithstanding Georgiades’s December 16, 2016 directive,
he believed that his preferred work schedule was acceptable
since his time and accrual records were consistently
approved. Again, the Grievant is mistaken. He received a
directive that he failed, and refused, to follow. If the
Grievant needed work time to engage in union activities, he
could have requested such leave. If granted, it should have
been So recorded on his time and accrual sheet, and not as
time worked. Rather, the Grievant continued to complete his
time and accrual sheets as though he was at work on OTDA
business beginning at 9:30 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m.
This was not accurate or truthful. As a Management
Specialist 2 the Grievant was expected to not only comport
his conduct to the directives of his supervisors, he was
also expected to accurately record his time without having
to be micromanaged. Accordingly, I find that the State has
proven by the requisite preponderance of the evidence the
allegations in Charges 5, 6 and & and that they constitute
misconduct. Charges 5, 6 and 8 are sustained.
6The State failed to present any legally competent
proof with respect to Charges 7, 9 and 11 and therefore
withdrew these Charges in its post-hearing submission.
Accordingly, Charges 7, 9 and 11 in the NOD are dismissed.
I also dismiss Charges 10, 12 and 13 of the NOD since
they allege criminal activity in violation of the state
Penal Laws. I find that determinations of guilt or
innocence in criminal matters are beyond my purview as a
disciplinary arbitrator and thus these charges are not
properly before me.
Having sustained Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8, I
now turn to the matter of penalty. As set forth above, the
Grievant is guilty of misconduct for using state resources
for non-worked related purposes and for insubordinately
continuing to do so despite having been directed to cease
such use, The Grievant is also guilty of misconduct for
failing to adhere to his assigned work schedule and for
failing to accurately record his time worked on his time
and attendance accrual records. The Grievant testified in
this matter and I had the opportunity to observe not only
his testimony but also his demeanor. It is clear that the
Grievant believes he is justified in using his work
computer and OTDA email for non-work purposes and that the
State is precluded from restricting his use. The Grievant
v7also clearly believes that he can set his own work schedule
to accommodate his union activities. The Grievant's failure
te recognize his misconduct or to change his conduct after
specific direction to do se supports a severe penalty.
However, I find that the proposed penalty of termination
Jacks the requisite just cause. The Grievant is a long term
employee with ne proven prior disciplinary record. There is
no evidence that his unauthorized use of State resources,
or hig failure to adhere to his assigned work schedule as
proven, interfered with the performance of his assigned
work duties. Accordingly I find that the appropriate
penalty to be imposed in this matter is a six (6) month
disciplinary suspension without pay. This penalty balances
the State's legitimate concerns that the Grievant feels no
obligation to abide by State policy or his employer’s
directives, with the parties’ acknowledged commitment to
progressive discipline. The Grievant is now clearly on
notice that he must not use his OTDA computer or the OTDA
e-mail system for non OTDA business, including union
business unrelated to OTDA, and that he must adhere ta his
assigned work schedule and accurately enter his time worked
in the LATS system. If the Grievant repeats any of the
conduct at issue in this NOD, he will be putting his future
employment in jeopardy.
18.I now address the issue of the Grievant’s immediate
suspension without pay. The Grievant moved for
reinstatement after the State rested its case contending
that the State lacked the requisite probable cause for
immediate suspension as of April 13, 2017. I reserved on
the motion at that time. After considering all the
credible evidence in the record I find that the State
lacked the requisite probable cause to suspend the Grievant
without pay as of April 19, 2017. The allegations of
misuse of state resources, and the allegations ef time and
attendance abuses, did not establish the requisite probable
cause that the Grievant’s continued prosence on the job at
that time represented a potential danger te persons or
Property or would severely interfere with operations as
required by the parties’ Agreement.
1. The employer proved guilt of Charges 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 and 8 as alleged in the NOD dated March 23,
2017 and therefore just cause to discipline the
grievant. Charges 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are
dismissed in their entirety.
192. The appropriate penalty to be imposed is a six
(6) month disciplinary suspension without pay.
3. ‘The employer did not prove probable cause te
suspend the grievant without pay é¢ffective March
20, 2017 (amended by the Employer to April 19,
2017).
Mag k, Coa
Mary L. rangle
Arbitrator
Dated: February 3, 2020
I, MARY L. CRANGLE, do hereby affirm that I am the
individual deseribed herein and whe executed this
instrument, with is my Decision and Award.
Muay Cearedle
Mary ut les a
February 3, 2020
20