The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed an improper practice charge after the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) terminated William MacDonald, a Plant Utility Engineer 1 at Hudson Correctional Facility who also served as the CSEA local president. CSEA alleged that the termination violated §§ 209-a.1(a) and (c) of New York’s Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act by retaliating against MacDonald for his protected union activity.
MacDonald had previously been disciplined in April 2021 after being found with a personal cell phone and charger while on duty in the facility’s powerhouse, conduct that violated provisions of the DOCCS Employees’ Manual. To resolve those charges, MacDonald entered into a disciplinary settlement agreement on June 4, 2021. Under that agreement, he served a 12-month “Disciplinary Evaluation Period,” during which the Department could impose dismissal without further appeal if it determined that he engaged in “similar” misconduct.
On May 10, 2022, while that disciplinary evaluation period was still in effect, Deputy Superintendent for Security Jeffrey Brown observed MacDonald sitting in his personal vehicle in the powerhouse parking lot using his personal cell phone. Brown reported the incident to the DOCCS Labor Relations office, explaining that employees serving disciplinary evaluation periods must have any potentially similar conduct reported so that Labor Relations can determine whether the settlement agreement has been violated. Brown testified that he did not recommend termination but simply forwarded the observation for review.
MacDonald told Brown that he was using the phone to conduct union business. Nonetheless, DOCCS determined that the conduct violated the terms of the settlement agreement because it again involved unauthorized use of a personal cell phone while on duty. On May 13, 2022, DOCCS terminated MacDonald’s employment pursuant to the agreement. The termination letter, signed by DOCCS Director of Labor Relations Matthew Bloomingdale, stated that MacDonald had “failed to devote all [his] time and attention to [his] duties” by using his phone without authorization while on duty.
In the resulting improper practice proceeding, the CSEA argued that MacDonald’s termination was motivated by his union activity as the local CSEA president. Under New York PERB precedent, to establish retaliation under §§ 209-a.1(a) and (c), the charging party must prove three elements: that the employee engaged in protected activity, that the employer knew of that activity, and that the adverse action would not have occurred “but for” the protected activity.
An ALJ initially dismissed the charge, finding that CSEA had not shown that the decisionmaker in DOCCS Labor Relations knew about MacDonald’s protected activity. The PERB Board reversed that determination on exceptions and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board held that the record did support a finding that the Labor Relations decisionmaker was aware of MacDonald’s union role and directed the ALJ to determine whether MacDonald would not have been terminated “but for” that protected activity and, if relevant, whether DOCCS had a legitimate business justification for the discharge.
On remand, the ALJ concluded that CSEA still failed to satisfy the causation requirement. Although the timing of the termination was close to MacDonald’s protected activity, the ALJ explained that temporal proximity alone is insufficient to establish retaliatory motive. The record contained no evidence indicating that the Labor Relations official who made the termination decision acted with anti-union animus.
The ALJ also rejected CSEA’s attempt to rely on Brown’s alleged animus. Even assuming that Brown reported the phone-use incident because of hostility toward MacDonald and his role in the union, Brown was not the decisionmaker who terminated MacDonald. The termination decision was made within the DOCCS Labor Relations office, and the record contained no evidence showing DOCCS was aware of the protected activity or motivated by it.
Because CSEA could not establish that MacDonald would not have been terminated “but for” his protected activity, the ALJ held that CSEA failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The ALJ further noted that DOCCS had offered a legitimate business justification for the termination: MacDonald’s violation of the disciplinary settlement agreement through unauthorized cell phone use while on duty. The improper practice charge was therefore dismissed in its entirety.
CSEA, Local 1000 v. State of New York (Department of Corrections and Community Supervision), 58 PERB ¶ 4571 (N.Y. PERB ALJ Nov. 18, 2025).