Matthew Nathe, a correctional officer employed by Orange County in New York and an elected delegate of the Orange County Corrections Officers’ Benevolent Association (OCCOBA), circulated a petition seeking a special union meeting to reconsider the union’s bargaining demands. At the time, the OCCOBA executive board and negotiation committee had already approved a set of proposals that the union was pursuing in collective bargaining with the County. Nathe’s petition sought a membership vote on whether union negotiators should instead pursue a “post-bid” proposal that he believed qualified as a mandatory subject of bargaining.
The OCCOBA executive board responded with a letter advising Nathe that under union rules, his actions could warrant removal from union membership for conduct tending to bring discredit upon the association. The letter stated that circulating a petition to amend the negotiation committee’s demands undermined the effectiveness of the bargaining team and could disrupt the ongoing negotiations with the County.
On December 7, 2022, shortly before the start of the overnight shift, Sergeant Armond Della Pia, who served as President of OCCOBA, approached Nathe before lineup and handed him the letter. Della Pia was not in uniform and not on duty at the time. During the lineup, Della Pia addressed the assembled officers about the petition. Della Pia described the petition as “garbage,” “illegal,” and “ridiculous,” and when Nathe attempted to speak, told him to “shut the f**k up.” A lieutenant eventually ended the lineup, and the confrontation continued briefly in the hallway. Nathe later filed a workplace violence complaint, but the County concluded the allegation was unsubstantiated, although Della Pia was counseled and the incident was noted in his personnel history.
Nathe filed an improper practice charge alleging that the County violated §§ 209-a.1(a) and (c) of the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act. Section 209-a.1(c) makes it an improper practice for a public employer to “discriminate against any employee” for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging membership in, or participation in the activities of, an employee organization. Section 209-a.1(a) separately prohibits a public employer or its agents from deliberately interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under § 202 of the Act, including the right to form, join, and participate in a union.
Nathe alleged that Della Pia’s confrontation with him during lineup constituted both unlawful discrimination and unlawful interference because it was motivated by Nathe’s protected union activity — namely, drafting and circulating a petition concerning the union’s bargaining demands.
The ALJ granted the County’s motion to dismiss. With respect to the discrimination claim under § 209-a.1(c), the ALJ applied PERB’s three-part test requiring proof that the employee engaged in protected activity, that the employer knew of that activity, and that the employer took an adverse employment action because of it. Even assuming Nathe’s account of the lineup incident was true, the ALJ concluded that he failed to establish the third element because the record showed no adverse employment-related consequence. PERB precedent requires evidence of employment harm, such as discipline, termination, a negative evaluation, or denial of promotion, and none resulted from the confrontation.
The ALJ also rejected Nathe’s interference claim under § 209-a.1(a). Improper practices under that provision must be committed by a “public employer or its agents.” The record showed that Della Pia had requested permission to address lineup in his role as OCCOBA president pursuant to a longstanding practice permitting union officials to briefly address employees about union matters. Although Della Pia later invoked his authority as a sergeant and ordered Nathe to stop speaking, the ALJ found it “not reasonable” to attribute that conduct to the County. Della Pia had sought to address lineup in his union capacity and then, without warning, “switched hats” by asserting supervisory authority while off duty and outside the scope of his employment.
Nathe also argued that the lieutenant present at the lineup violated § 209-a.1(a) by failing to adequately intervene and stop Della Pia. The ALJ rejected that claim as well. The evidence showed that the lieutenant ended the lineup to stop the confrontation and later admonished Della Pia for “switching hats.” On that record, the ALJ concluded there was no proof that the lieutenant “acted deliberately” for the purpose of interfering with Nathe’s protected rights.
Because Nathe failed to show either an adverse employment action or conduct attributable to the County as employer, the ALJ dismissed the charge in its entirety.
Matthew P. Nathe v. County of Orange and Orange County Sheriff, 58 PERB ¶ 4567, 58 Off. Dec. of N.Y. Pub. Empl. Rel. Bd. ¶ 4567 (N.Y. PERB ALJ Nov. 6, 2025).