Powers set out in Election Law 3-300 trump relevant provisions in a contract negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law

To contact us Click HERE

Powers set out in Election Law 3-300 trumprelevant provisions in a contract negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law
County of Erie v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 815, 2012 NY Slip Op 07144, Courtof Appeals

In Town of Wallkill v CivilServ. Empls. Assn., Inc. (Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Town of Wallkill PoliceDept. Unit, Orange County Local 836), 2012 NY Slip Op 07146,  the Court of Appeals ruled that §155 of the Town Law prohibited Taylor Lawnegotiations providing for an alternative disciplinary procedure [see http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/negotiating-disciplinary-procedures.html].
In County of Erie v Civil Service Employees Association, Local 815, the high courtheld that Eric County [the County] could not agree to contract provisions in the course ofcollective bargaining pursuant to the Taylor Law that would limit the powersvested in the County's Board of Elections by §3-300 ofthe Election Law.
Affirming an order of the Appellate Division, the Court ofAppeals, Justice Ciparick dissenting, ruled that  the County couldnot negate or restrict the Erie County Board of Elections’ (the Board) statutorypower to remove employees’ nor restrict theBoard’s scheduling of its employees' work shifts on election day so as toprovide adequate coverage in the course of collective bargaining inview of the authority vested in the Board by §3-300 of the Election Law.*
The Civil Service Employees Association, Local 815 (CSEA), hadfiled a grievance on behalf of certain employees of the Board alleging that thecollective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the County and CSEA was violatedwhen the Board modified the work hours of its employees assigned to schooldistrict elections in a way that deprived these employees of overtimecompensation.
After the Board denied the grievance, CSEA notified theCounty of its intent to arbitrate the dispute. The County objected and SupremeCourt to granted the County’s motion stay arbitration, which ruling wasaffirmed by the Appellate Division (see 82 AD3d 1633).
Relying on the provisions set out in §3-300 of the ElectionLaw, the Appellate Division concluded that the County could not negotiate awaythe Board’s statutory authority with respect to [1] the appointment and removal ofits employees or its prescribing their duties, nor [2] diminish or impair any other authority vested in the Boardby the statute in the course of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law. The Court of Appeals agreed.

EDITOR'S COMMENT: This ruling is consistent with case law holding that a statutory right enjoyed by an employee may not be negotiated away through collective bargaining. For example, a collective bargaining agreement provided that in determining seniority in the event of demotions in connection with a layoff of employees in the competitive class, the "date hired" was to be used to determine the employee's seniority.. §80 of the Civil Service Law provides that the initial date of "permanent appointment" controls in determining seniority for the purpose of layoff. After an employee having the earlier “date hired” was retained in the position and a person having the earlier date of “permanent appointment” was laid off instead, the Appellate Division ruled that the seniority provisions of the Civil Service Law controlled notwithstanding the “layoff provisions” addressing "seniority" for the purposes of layoff set out in the contract between the parties negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law [see City of Plattsburgh v Local 788, 108 AD2d 104]
* Section 3-300 of theElection Law vests every board of elections with exclusive power to"appoint, and at its pleasure remove, clerks, voting machine technicians,custodians and other employees, fix their number, prescribe their duties, fixtheir titles and rank and establish their salaries within the amountsappropriated therefor by the local legislative body and shall secure in theappointment of employees of the board of elections equal representation of themajor political parties."
The Eric County decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07144.htm