Got '371' Rep Fired
HRA Found Guilty Of Anti-Union Bias

By MEREDITH KOLODNER

A city Caseworker was unfairly disciplined due to the Human Resources Administration's "anti-union animus," according to the Office of Collective Bargaining, which ordered the agency to stop engaging in a "campaign of discrimination and retaliation" against its union employees.

Judge TYNIA D. RICHARD: Abuse of Authority?

Zinoviy Levitant, 53, was fired March 6, 2007 while awaiting the BCB decision, and has been without health coverage for almost a year. The board did not reinstate him, ruling that it did not have the authority to do so.

Judge Wouldn't Budge

The 13-year veteran Caseworker was sacked after the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge Tynia D. Richard refused to adjourn a hearing that was scheduled on the same day and at the same time as his BCB hearing, even though she was aware of the conflict.

As a result, Mr. Levitant was tried in absentia, and Judge Richard recommended his termination. She ruled in direct contradiction to the BCB on several of the same issues brought before both bodies.

"It was a real abuse of authority," he said. "All this action taken against me was a waste of taxpayers' money."

Mr. Levitant was elected shop steward in 2001 but went on medical leave at the end of 2006 after several years of what the board called "unwarranted disciplinary actions" by management. District Council 37, which represented Mr. Levitant, is now fighting to get him back-pay and to get him reinstated.

'Charges Improper'

"[T]he disciplinary charges against the employee were improperly motivated," the board's decision stated, "and the City's proffered legitimate business reason was a pretext for disciplining the employee."

The board agreed that Mr. Levitant had been disciplined in retaliation for filing numerous grievances and improper-practice petitions. The decision ordered HRA to "cease and desist from engaging in all discriminatory actions aimed at discouraging membership and participation in Social Service Employees Union, Local 371 or District Council 37; interfering with, restraining and/or coercing Zinovy [sic] Levitant and other HRA employees from engaging in protected activity; and engaging in a campaign of retaliation and discrimination."

The board found that it did not have the authority to overturn the OATH decision, but it did note that HRA knew of the scheduling conflict and made no attempt to resolve it. In addition, HRA appeared at both hearings on Oct. 30, 2006 and did not inform the Trial Examiner of the concurrent disciplinary proceeding at OATH. Furthermore, "HRA attempted to benefit from the scheduling conflict by not joining in Levitant's request for an adjournment at OATH and by fully participating in both forums," the board's decision stated.

In a previous and related decision, the board ruled against the union, stating that HRA did not discriminate against Mr. Levitant when it failed to promote him. In that same decision, the board also ruled in the union's favor on the improper practice charges that HRA "interfered with Mr. Levitant's exercise of his statutory rights by discouraging participation in protected activity and that the agency discriminated and retaliated against Levitant for exercising his rights."

The terminated city employee said he felt vindicated by the overall results, but frustrated that the board had not prevented HRA from discriminating against him before he got fired. "What am I supposed to do with this notice, with this order?" he asked. "They should have done it while I was still at work."

Nonetheless, Mr. Levitant believes that the ruling was an important victory. "Members need to know their rights, and they need to know that what HRA did was in violation of their rights," he said. "We will keep fighting, but now at least the members know."