Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Union newsletter articles alleged to be libelous

Union newsletter articles alleged to be libelous
Santiago v United Federation. of Teachers, Local 2, 39 A.D.3d 284

Manuel Santiago, an assistant principal, sued a teacher who served as a union representative alleging that two articles authored by the teacher that were published in a teacher union?s newsletter were libelous.

The articles were critical of Santiago?s ?handling of certain disciplinary and school safety issues,? and accused him of ?pocketing illegal per session money in violation of Chancellor?s Regulation C-175.? The articles indicated that after being told by the principal to stop working on Saturdays, Santiago ?continued to punch in and collect money . . . [b]ecause an important person in the Superintendent?s Office has conspired with [Santiago] to take money that is designated for the instruction of our children and funnel it into [Santiago?s] bank account.?

The Appellate Division said that the teacher?s statements in her capacity as a union representative ?criticizing [Santiago?s] professional competence and honesty,? fall within the broad definition of a ?labor dispute? under federal law, and therefore are not subject to state law defamation claims in the absence of a showing of actual malice, i.e., that the writer ?published the statements while highly aware that they were probably false.?*

The court also held that ?the offending statements were qualifiedly privileged under state law because of the common interest shared by the union and the employer in preventing mistreatment of teachers in the workplace and ensuring compliance with the Chancellor?s rules.?
In order to overcome the privilege, Santiago had to establish either constitutional or common-law malice on the part of the writer of the article, said the court.

The Appellate Division concluded that ?no issues of fact exist as to [allegations of] constitutional malice,? and, with respect to common-law malice, similar reasons show that ?no issues of fact exist as to whether the [author] spoke out of spite or ill will? insofar as common-law malice is alleged.

Even if the teacher held some grudge against Santiago, said the Appellate Division, ?it remains undisputed that the complaints about Santiago came from the teachers themselves.?

The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of Supreme Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez granting the United Federation of Teacher Local 2?s motion for summary judgment dismissing Santiago?s complaint.

* The federal National Labor Relations Act does not cover public employees in New York State. In addition, Civil Service Law Section 209-a.6, a subdivision that is part of the Taylor Law, provides that ?In applying this section, fundamental distinctions between private and public employment shall be recognized, and no body of federal or state law applicable wholly or in part to private employment, shall be regarded as binding or controlling precedent.?

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 26, 2010 (boomark / email).