Town of Wallkill v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. (Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,Town of Wallkill Police Dept. Unit, Orange County Local 836), 2012 NYSlip Op 07146, Court of Appeals
Although for more than a decade collective bargainingagreements (CBA) between the Town of Wallkill (the Town) and the Town ofWallkill Police Officers' Benevolent Association, Inc. (PBA) providedthat police officers subject to discipline by the Town had the right to ahearing before a neutral arbitrator, in 2007 the Town adopted Local Law No. 2,which sets forth disciplinary procedures for police officers different thanthose set out in the CBA.
Essentially the new disciplinary procedure did not providefor arbitration but instead provided that a disciplinary hearing would beconducted by “a Town Board member or a designee of the Town Board” rather than submitted to arbitration. The Board memberor the designee was to issue a decision “with recommended findings of fact anda suggested disciplinary penalty.” The Town Board would then review the hearing officer's findings and recommendation, render a final determination ofthe charges and if the police officer was found guilty of one or more of the disciplinary charges and specifications, impose a penalty "consistent with the provisions of theNew York State Town Law."* Any appeal from suchdetermination was subject to review pursuant to a CPLR Article 78** proceeding inSupreme Court.
Following its enacting Local Law No. 2, the Town initiateddisciplinary action against two police officers and the PBA filed demands for arbitration on behalf of the police officers. The Town’s Article 75 applicationfor a permanent stay of arbitration was denied by Supreme Court, which grantedthe PBA’s cross-petition to compel arbitration.
Citing Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc.v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd. (6 NY3d 563 [2006]), theAppellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling (see 84 AD3d 968 [2d Dept2011]).
The Court of Appeals sustained the Appellate Division’sruling, explaining that notwithstanding “the strong and sweeping policy of theState to support collective bargaining under the Taylor Law," policediscipline may not be a subject of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law “whenthe Legislature has expressly committed disciplinary authority over a policedepartment to local officials."
Although Civil Service Law §§75 and 76 generally provide for"the procedures for disciplining public employees, including policeofficers," and where applicable, "police discipline may be thesubject of collective bargaining," the Court of Appeals noted that CivilService Law §76(4) also states that "[n]othing contained insection seventy-five or seventy-six of this chapter shall be construed torepeal or modify any general, special or local"preexisting laws.”***
In this instance the Court of Appeals concluded that “thatthe Town properly exercised its authority to adopt Local Law No. 2 pursuant toTown Law §155." Accordingly, the Court held that “police discipline resides withthe Town Board and is a prohibited subject of collective bargaining between theTown and the PBA.”****
* Town Law §155,. In thewords of the Court of Appeals, Town Law §155 is “a general law enacted prior toCivil Service Law §§75 and 76, commits to the Town the power and authorityto adopt and make rules and regulations for the examination, hearing,investigation and determination of charges, made or preferred against anymember or members of such police department."
** Town Law §155 sets out a 30-day statute of limitations for filing such a petition.
*** Civil Service Law §76(4) continues the provision set out in §22.3 of the Civil Service of 1909, as amended, to this end.
*** Significantly, the Court ruled that negotiatingsuch disciplinary procedures is a "prohibited subject of collective bargaining" with respect to a town and an employee organization representing the policeofficers of the town, rather than holding that such negotiation is a "non-mandatory" subject of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law Article 14].
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07146.htm
===================
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder