In October 2023, the Onondaga County Sheriff’s administration in New York proposed changing the work schedule for deputy sheriffs in the Custody Department from an eight-hour day, four-days-on, two-days-off schedule to a ten-hour day, 4-3-4-4 schedule. Chief John Drapikowski conveyed the proposal to the Deputy Sheriffs Benevolent Association of Onondaga County, Inc. (DSBA) President Jonathan Hagenmayer, who took it to the DSBA’s seven-member negotiations team. On November 6, 2023, Hagenmayer texted Drapikowski that the team had unanimously “vetoed” the idea, citing the fast-approaching start of negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement and unanswered questions about implementation. The team suggested the County present the proposal at the bargaining table instead.
On November 22, 2023, the day before Thanksgiving, Lieutenant Crayg Dykes emailed all Custody Division employees an anonymous, time-sensitive survey “to gauge member interest” in the proposed 4-3-4-4 schedule. The survey explained basic details, noted it would be a one-year pilot program, and stated that “additional details [would] be forthcoming depending on survey results.” Hagenmayer received the survey that afternoon and immediately sent a cease-and-desist email demanding its withdrawal. The survey remained active over the holiday weekend and was removed the following Monday.
The DSBA filed an improper practice charge alleging the survey constituted unlawful direct dealing in violation of the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act. The DSBA also filed a second charge alleging that Sheriff Tobias Shelly undermined union leadership during an April 11, 2024 roll call appearance.
At the April roll call, Shelly discussed various topics, including a judge’s decision regarding the Jamesville facility. He mentioned that Jamesville employees — who belong to a different bargaining unit — were enjoying the new 4-3-4-4 schedule. Testimony differed on the exact exchange that followed. Deputy David Mazzoni testified that Shelly volunteered “we could have had the same schedule, but we turned it down,” prompting Mazzoni to ask why, to which Shelly responded, “ask my union president.” DSBA Vice President Dana Earl recalled Shelly saying the schedule could have been implemented “if the president of the DSBA didn’t squash it.” Deputy Daniel Gratien, standing outside the roll call room, heard Shelly state that “the union shot it down” and mention the cost of fighting improper practice charges.
County witnesses offered a different sequence. Undersheriff Jeffrey Passino testified that after Shelly mentioned the Jamesville schedule, Mazzoni asked why the Justice Center wasn’t offered it, and Shelly responded that it was offered to the union president, who turned it down. Shelly testified similarly, stating he told Mazzoni “you were offered the schedule through your union president. You should ask him.”
An ALJ dismissed both charges in their entirety. Regarding the November survey, the ALJ found that the communication did not constitute direct dealing. The text of the survey sought to gauge interest in a schedule the County was “considering proposing” and noted that further details would follow depending on results. There was no evidence of any exchange of promises or intent to reach an agreement with unit members directly, as required to establish direct dealing. The record showed the County had first presented the proposal to union leadership, who rejected it, before the survey was sent.
Regarding the April roll call comments, the ALJ found no violation of the Act. Applying an objective test, the ALJ concluded that Shelly’s statements — even accepting all witness testimony as true — were not threatening or coercive. The comments reflected the County’s opinion on the merits of the proposed schedule and, while perhaps “snide,” did not contain threats of reprisal or promises of benefits designed to interfere with protected rights.
The ALJ similarly found no violation of the prohibition on employer interference with union administration. Although Shelly’s comments identified the DSBA president as the reason the schedule was not implemented, they stopped short of urging members to select different leadership or otherwise meddle in the DSBA’s internal affairs. Unlike cases where employers explicitly told members not to listen to their negotiator, Shelly merely directed a member to ask his president about the offer.
The charges were dismissed in their entirety.
In the Matter of Deputy Sheriffs Benevolent Ass’n of Onondaga County, Inc. v. County of Onondaga, 58 PERB ¶ 4561 (2025).