Swinton v. United Fed'n of Teachers

197 A.D.3d 1114

150 N.Y.S.3d 620 (Mem)

In the Matter of Wilma SWINTON, appellant,

v.UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, Local 2, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), et al., respondents.

2018–02700

Index No. 1936/17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—June 10, 2021

September 1, 2021

Wilma Swinton, Bronx, NY, appellant pro se.

Robert T. Reilly, New York, N.Y. (Antonio M. Cavallaro of counsel), for respondent United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO).

Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Devin Slack and Elina Druker of counsel), for respondent Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York.

David P. Quinn, Albany, N.Y. (Ellen M. Mitchell of counsel), for respondent Public Employment Relations Board.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a decision of an administrative law judge dated December 12, 2016, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petitioner's improper practice charge against the respondent United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez–Salta, J.), dated December 21, 2017. The order and judgment granted the separate motions of the respondents United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, and Public Employment Relations Board to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against each of them, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The petitioner is a former school secretary who was employed by the respondent Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (hereinafter the DOE). After advising her union, the respondent United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) (hereinafter the union), of alleged harassment by her supervisors, the union informed her that it would not file a special complaint with the DOE on her behalf. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an improper practice charge with the respondent Public Employment Relations Board based on the union's alleged violation of its duty of fair representation under Civil Service Law § 209–a. In a decision dated December 12, 2016, after a hearing, an administrative law judge (hereinafter ALJ) dismissed the petitioner's improper practice charge.

In June 2017, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the ALJ's decision. The...