Improper practice charge agains UFT dismissed

State of New York
Public Employment Relations Board

CASE NO. U-21634

In the Matter of

DAVID K. ROEMER,

Charging Party,

-and-

UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Respondent.


DAVID K. ROEMER, pro se

DECISION OF DIRECTOR

 

On April 13, 2000, David K. Roemer filed an improper practice charge alleging that the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) violated section 209-a.2(c) of the Public Employees' Fair Employment Act (Act). Roemer was notified that his charge was deficient for several reasons and was given an opportunity either to amend it to correct those deficiencies, withdraw it or object to the determination that it was deficient. He has chosen the latter course of action.


Section 204.1(a)(1) ofRules of Procedure (Rules) requires that a charge be filed within four months of the conduct which is the subject of the charge. The only conduct by the UFT asserted to have occurred within the four-month period prior to April 13, 2000, was its January 9, 2000 denial of his request to be paid for expenses incurred when he engaged his own attorney to represent him in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him by his employer. Thus, the charge is untimely except in that one regard. That Roemer may have used alternative means of redress before filing his charge does not extend the four-month period for filing improper practice charges.(1)


As to UFT's refusal to reimburse Roemer for legal expenses incurred in pursuing those alternative means, he pleads no facts which would establish that the UFT was under any obligation to do so or that its refusal to do so was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. The bare assertion that UFT made the refusal is insufficient to establish the violation alleged.


Finally, Roemer asserts that UFT failed to compensate him for the damages caused by its failure to represent him. However, he has not pled any specific facts (2) to support his conclusory allegations (3) or which would establish that such failure, if any, was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.


Accordingly, the charge must be, and it hereby is, dismissed.


Dated at Albany, New York
this 1st day of May, 2000

Monte Klein

Director, Public Employment Practices and Representation


(1) See, e.g., Manhasset Union Free Sch. Dist., 24 PERB section 3003, and cases cited therein at 3006, note 2 (1991)

(2) Rules, section 204.1(b)(3)

(3) See, e.g., New York City Transit Auth. and TWU, Local 100, 31 PERB section 4647 (1998), aff'd, 32 PERB section 3031 (1999).