New York law recognizes that public-sector unions owe employees a duty of fair representation. But for many public employees, enforcing that right can be extraordinarily difficult.

Under CPLR 217(2), an employee generally has only four months to bring a duty-of-fair-representation claim, measured from when the employee knew or should have known of the alleged breach or suffered actual harm, whichever is later.

That short deadline can become especially confusing when the employee is still relying on the union to handle a grievance, waiting for responses, being told that the matter is still pending, or trying to complete a mandatory grievance process.

The New York Court of Appeals addressed part of this problem in Matter of Dourdounas v. City of New York, 44 N.Y.3d 34 (2025). The Court held that where a claim arises solely under a collective bargaining agreement containing a mandatory grievance procedure, the employee generally must use that process and, in certain circumstances, must establish a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation before independently pursuing the contractual claim against the employer.

There is another problem.

Many unions operate as unincorporated associations. Under General Associations Law § 13 and the rule originating in Martin v. Curran, an employee seeking monetary relief against an unincorporated union can face a requirement to establish authorization or ratification by the union membership.

The Court of Appeals recognized the practical difficulty of applying that rule to an individual grievance in Palladino v. CNY Centro. More recently, the First Department applied the rule to District Council 37 in Flowers v. District Council 37 (2025).

But an individual employee’s grievance is generally not decided by thousands of union members.

The membership does not collectively determine whether one employee’s grievance will be filed, what evidence will be submitted, whether deadlines will be met, whether arbitration will be requested, or whether representation will end.

Those decisions are normally made by authorized union representatives.

Requiring membership-wide involvement would create additional concerns. Individual grievances may contain sensitive medical, disability, disciplinary, harassment, family, personnel, or financial information. Turning private grievances into membership-wide votes could increase disclosure, require extensive redaction, delay time-sensitive cases, and consume union resources on matters that concern one employee rather than the bargaining unit as a whole.

What This Petition Is Asking New York to Change
This petition asks the New York State Legislature to consider:

1. Extend the four-month deadline to one year.
   Give public employees a reasonable opportunity to determine what happened, obtain records, complete required procedures, and seek legal advice.
2. Require clearer notice when representation ends.
   When a union affirmatively decides that it will take no further action on an individual grievance, the employee should ordinarily receive clear written notice.
3. Address misleading or unclear grievance-status communications.
   If an authorized representative tells an employee that a grievance remains pending or is still being processed, that communication should matter when determining when the employee reasonably should have known representation ended.
4. Coordinate the limitations period with mandatory grievance exhaustion.
   Employees should not lose access to a judicial remedy merely because they complied with a grievance procedure they were required to follow.
5. Reform the Martin rule for individual duty-of-fair-representation claims.
   An employee who proves an actionable breach, causation, and actual damages should not also have to prove that an entire union membership authorized or ratified conduct concerning an individual grievance that the membership never voted on.
6. Hold the organization—not ordinary members—responsible where appropriate.
   Rank-and-file union members should not become personally liable simply because they belong to the union.
7. Preserve legitimate union discretion.
   This proposal would not make a union liable merely because a grievance was unsuccessful or because a member disagreed with a reasonable, good-faith decision.

Why This Is Personal to Me
I began researching these laws because of my own experience navigating a public-employment grievance and relying on union representation.

What I discovered went beyond my individual dispute.

New York recognizes a duty of fair representation, yet several procedural rules can interact in ways that make obtaining a meaningful remedy extremely difficult.

I am not asking lawmakers to decide my employment case through legislation.

I am asking them to examine whether laws governing modern public-sector representation still provide an appropriate balance between union authority, union discretion, individual employee rights, privacy, and organizational accountability.

Strong collective representation and meaningful accountability do not have to be opposites.

When an organization has substantial authority to act on an employee’s behalf, there should also be a workable legal process for determining responsibility when an employee can actually prove that the organization violated its legal duty and caused compensable harm.

This petition does not seek to repeal the Taylor Law or weaken collective bargaining.

It asks New York to modernize CPLR 217(2), Civil Service Law § 209-a, and General Associations Law § 13 so the duty of fair representation is accompanied by a practical and understandable method of enforcement.

Please review the proposal and decide whether you support these reforms.