You are here: / / NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE...

NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the Appellate Division, over a dissenting opinion, determined the New York State Racing and Wagering Board had the discretion to reduce the per diem wages of seasonal employees by 25%. The majority held that a Side Letter Agreement, which incorporated 50 articles of the collective bargaining agreement, set limits on the discretionary authority of the racing board, but did not prohibit the discretionary wage reduction at issue here. The dissent argued the 50 incorporated articles did not address the wage reduction and therefore should not be deemed to have given the racing board the discretion to unilaterally reduce the wages of seasonal employees:

The Side Letter Agreement was comprehensive in addressing all conditions of employment for seasonal employees for 1996 to 1999. It included specific pay increases for specific years, but not for the fiscal year in which the 25% reduction took effect. The Side Letter Agreement did not rule out pay reductions and did not impose any conditions precedent to pay reductions … . Thus, PERB's [Public Employment Relations Board's] conclusion that it was “reasonably clear” that both sides intended the Side Letter Agreement “to act as a negotiated limitation upon the State Budget Director's discretion” as to compensation for seasonal employees was not arbitrary and capricious. Contrary to the dissent's characterization, the decision is supported not just by the quantity of items contained in the Side Letter Agreement, but by specific items expressly limiting the discretion otherwise delegated to the Racing Board chair and Budget Director by statute. PERB's decision should be accorded deference as a decision within its area of expertise. Read as a whole, the language of the Side Letter Agreement “implicitly demonstrate[s] that the parties had reached accord” with respect to any limitations on the discretionary authority of the Budget Director to change the per diem compensation of seasonal employees. Matter of Kent v Lefkowitz, 2016 NY Slip Op 03650, CtApp 5-10-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT)/PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT)/RACING AND WAGERING BOARD (NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT)

You might also like
An Assignment of a Note, Which Was Silent About Whether the Assignment of the Right to Bring a Tort Action Was Included, Did Not, Under New York Law, Include the Right to Bring a Tort Action
IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP).
OFFICE-BASED SURGERY CENTERS, UNLIKE HOSPITALS AND AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTERS, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR FACILITY FEES UNDER THE NO-FAULT LAW.
“Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators of Street Sweepers in New York City—Standard Explained
Use of Stolen New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) Key to Allow Persons to Enter the Subway System for a Small Fee Deprived the NYCTA of Its Property and Therefore Constituted Petit Larceny
AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).
WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT PHOTOS... COMBINED RACIAL-GENDER BIAS IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE...