| Matter of Fashion Inst. of Tech. v New York State Pub. Empl. RelationsBd. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09510 [68 AD3d 605] |
| December 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Fashion Institute of Technology,Petitioner, v New York State Public Employment Relations Board et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] David P. Quinn, Albany, for New York State Public Employment Relations Board,respondent. Office of James R. Sandner, New York (Ann Burdick of counsel), for United CollegeEmployees of the Fashion Institute of Technology, respondent.
Determination of respondent New York State Public Employment Relations Board, datedMay 20, 2008, which affirmed the decision of its Administrative Law Judge finding thatpetitioner violated Civil Service Law (Public Employees' Fair Employment Act) § 209-a(1) (d) by unilaterally discontinuing the past practice of computing day adjunct professors' payper semester on the basis of 16 weeks, and directed petitioner to restore the past practice and toreimburse any wages and benefits lost as a result of the reduction to 15 weeks, unanimouslyconfirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78(transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman,J.], entered September 25, 2008), dismissed, without costs.
The standard of review here is whether there is substantial evidence to support respondentBoard's determination (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45NY2d 176 [1978]). The standard was met by evidence showing that the practice of computingday adjuncts' pay per semester on the basis of 16 weeks is subject to collective bargaining(see Civil Service Law § 201 [4]; § 204 [2]), that the practice "wasunequivocal and was continued uninterrupted for a period of time under the circumstances tocreate a reasonable expectation among the affected unit employees that the [practice] wouldcontinue" (Matter of Manhasset UnionFree School Dist. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 61 AD3d 1231, 1233[2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), and that petitioner had actual orconstructive knowledge of the practice.
We find that the remedy of directing petitioner, inter alia, to reimburse any wages andbenefits lost as a result of its unilateral change in computation is reasonable (see CivilService Law § 205 [5] [d]).[*2]
We have considered petitioner's remaining argumentsand find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Freedman andAbdus-Salaam, JJ.