New York’s Ulster County Sheriff’s Employees Association President, Carel Soltys, filed a grievance in October 2022 challenging overtime distribution practices and later disseminated a controversial letter from other corrections officers to union members in December 2022. In between these events, Soltys responded to an inmate who became upset when his meal tray was placed on the floor. Though Soltys documented the incident in a report and took photographs, he did not activate his body-worn camera to record video of the interaction. County officials reviewing the incident determined that Soltys violated multiple policies by failing to properly supervise meal distribution, ensure mask compliance, wear full protective equipment, and activate his camera during what they deemed a reportable incident.
The Association filed an unfair labor practice charge against the County of Ulster and the Ulster County Sheriff’s Office, alleging violations of New York’s Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, asserting that Soltys’ discipline was imposed in retaliation for his protected activity.
The ALJ applied the three-part test for retaliation claims. First, the ALJ confirmed that Soltys’ grievance filing and union communications constituted protected activity. However, while the County knew of Soltys’ union role and grievance, evidence did not establish that the specific decision-makers disciplining him knew about his dissemination of the controversial letter beforehand. Most critically, the ALJ found no causal connection between the protected activities and the counseling, noting the disciplinary action followed directly from policy violations documented in Soltys’ own incident report. The ALJ emphasized the inconsistency in Soltys characterizing the event as too minor to require video recording while simultaneously filing a formal incident report about the inmate’s behavior. Testimony from other officers supported that similar situations would typically warrant camera activation.
The decision rejected claims of disparate treatment, finding no evidence that other officers committed comparable violations without discipline. The ALJ determined the counseling represented a legitimate response to documented policy breaches rather than retaliation for union activities. While the Association argued that the timing between protected activities and discipline suggested improper motives, the ALJ found the County’s justification for the counseling — based on the inmate incident and subsequent review — credible and unrelated to Soltys’ union role. The ALJ ultimately dismissed the improper practice charge.
County of Ulster and Ulster County Sheriff, 58 PERB ¶ 4513 (NY PERB 2025).