|
ALBANY---The New York State Police engaged in an improper employer practice when it banned off-duty troopers from wearing their union pins from the Police Benevolent Association while assisting the defense in any criminal jury trial the state Public Employment Relations Board said.
And the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court concurs.
In a ruling Thursday, the appellate court upheld PERB's ruling in the matter. State Police chief counsel Glenn Valle had issued a directive barring PBA members from wearing their union pins during criminal trials in 2002 and in March 2003, the PBA had filed an improper practice charge, claiming a violation of Civil Service Law.
Following a hearing, an administrative law judge found against the State Police and ordered the agency to rescind the directive. PERB affirmed the ruling, finding that wearing union insignia while off-duty and out of uniform is a protected activity under the Public Employees' Fair Employment Act.
The state had challenged the ruling.
The directive stemmed from an incident wherein several PBA members wore a small union pin on their lapels during the criminal trial of a former state trooper who was acquitted. Notably, no objection was voiced by either the judge or the prosecuting attorney to the fact that these individuals, who were off duty and dressed in civilian attire, wore the pin while in the courtroom. Subsequent to the trial, however, the District Attorney complained about it in a letter to the PBA's president. The PBA represents more than 3,500 troopers.
Former Rensselaer district attorney Ken Bruno who had prosecuted the case claimed the acquittal might have been influenced by the union pin tacked to the lapel of the union representative sitting next to the defendant.
In writing the decision of the court, Justice Anthony Carpinello said that no objection to the pin had been voiced by either the judge or the prosecutor. He also ruled that no evidence had been presented that proved the working relationship between the state police and prosecutors would be hurt if off-duty PBA members were allow to wear the pins in court.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_00279.htm
PERB had concluded that the PBA members at issue "were engaged in a protected activity by expressing their membership in and support of the PBA and the State Police interest did not outweigh this "protected right…to participate in their union". The court held that insufficient evidence was provided to support Valle's justification for the directive, namely, that the working relationship between the State Police and district attorney offices will be adversely affected if PBA members are permitted to wear an insignia under these circumstances. 1-22-06
© 2005 North
Country Gazette
|
