The relationship of a statute to the provisions of a Taylor Law agreement

To contact us Click HERE

The relationship of a statute to the provisions of a TaylorLaw agreementCivil Service Employees Association v. Town of Harrison, 48NY2d 66
Where the court determines that a statute sets out a strong public policy, that provision will trump a  provision in a collective bargaining agreement inconsistent with the statute.
In the Town of Harrison case the Court of Appeals said that thereis only one way a new position in the classified service of a municipality maybe created: the way the controlling law requires.
In this instance the statutory imperatives of §22 of theCivil Service Law were viewed as reflecting such a strong public policy withrespect to establishing new positions that it may not be ignored nor may it becircumvented under color of an “alternative” to the provisions of §22 containedin a collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law(§200 et seq, Civil Service Law). Failing to comply with the mandates of CivilService Law §22 was fatal and no new position can come into being unless it iscreated as prescribed by Section.
Although the court did not address the “status” of theincumbent of the “new position” in its decision, it would appear that the“status” of the individual is not dependent on the “existence” of any positionand, presumably, other relevant provisions of the Civil Service Law (i.e., §80,Layoff) would control if the “nonexistent new position” could no longer serveas a “position” for payroll purposes.
Another example of a provision in the Civil Service Lawnullifying a provision in a collective bargaining agreement is City of Plattsburgh v Local 788, 108 AD2d 1045. In Plattsburgh the issueconcerned the application of a Taylor Law contract provision dealing withseniority in a demotion involving a layoff situation.
The collective bargaining agreement betweenthe City and Local 788 provided if there were to be demotions in connectionwith a layoff, the "date of hire" was to be used todetermine an employee's seniority. However, the "date ofhire" might not necessarily be the same date used to determine anindividual's service for seniority purposes for layoff under State law, i.e., theindividual's date of initial permanent appointment in public service.
In this instance the employee retained by the City hadbeen initially appointed after the individual that Plattsburgh had been demoted. However the retainedemployee had been permanently appointed to the position prior to the effectivedate of the permanent appointment of the individual Plattsburgh had demoted.

The Courtsaid that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away andgranted the City’s Article 75 petition to permanently stay the Local from submittingits grievance alleging a contract violation to arbitration.