New York Law Review

City of Yonkers v. Yonkers Fire Fighters, Local 628, 21 N.Y.3d 608 (2013): Interpreting “In Effect” in Public Sector Collective Bargaining Agreements

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

City of Yonkers v. Yonkers Fire Fighters, Local 628, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 21 N.Y.3d 608 (2013)

When a statute grants an exception for collectively negotiated agreements “in effect,” that exception does not extend to agreements that have expired, even if their terms are continued under the Triborough Law; the legislature must explicitly invoke the Triborough doctrine for it to apply.

Summary

The City of Yonkers and the Yonkers Fire Fighters Union had a CBA that expired in June 2009. The CBA provided firefighters with the option to enroll in noncontributory retirement plans. In response to a fiscal crisis, the state enacted Article 22 of the Retirement and Social Security Law, which required new firefighters to contribute to their pensions. An exception was carved out for agreements “in effect.” The Union argued that the CBA was still “in effect” due to the Triborough Law, which requires employers to continue the terms of an expired agreement. The Court of Appeals held that the exception did not apply to expired agreements, and the firefighters hired after the CBA expiration date were required to contribute to their pensions, as the legislature did not explicitly invoke the Triborough doctrine.

Facts

The City of Yonkers and the Yonkers Fire Fighters Union entered into a CBA, extended to June 30, 2009.
The CBA provided firefighters the option of enrolling in one of two noncontributory retirement plans.
In 2009, the state enacted Article 22 of the Retirement and Social Security Law, requiring new firefighters to contribute 3% of their salaries toward their pensions.
Section 8 of the law provided an exception for members of an employee organization to join a special retirement plan pursuant to a CBA “in effect” on the effective date of the act, but not upon termination of such agreement.
After the CBA expired, the City required firefighters hired after June 30, 2009, to pay 3% of their wages toward retirement benefits.
The Union filed an improper practice charge, arguing the City erred in failing to apply the CBA to firefighters hired after the termination date, relying on Section 8 and the Triborough Law.

Procedural History

PERB referred the matter to arbitration.
The City commenced a proceeding for a permanent stay of arbitration, arguing it was barred by Civil Service Law § 201(4) and Retirement and Social Security Law § 470.
Supreme Court rejected the argument and dismissed the proceeding.
The Appellate Division reversed, granting the petition for a stay, holding that the CBA was no longer “in effect” and the exception in Section 8 was inapplicable.
The Court of Appeals granted the Union leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether an expired CBA, whose terms are continued under the Triborough Law, is considered “in effect” for purposes of the exception provided in Section 8 of the 2009 legislation enacting Article 22 of the Retirement and Social Security Law.

Holding

No, because the legislature did not intend to apply the exception to agreements that had expired and could only be deemed to continue through the Triborough Law; if the legislature intended to invoke the Triborough doctrine, it would have made that explicit.

Court’s Reasoning

Public employers cannot negotiate retirement benefits not expressly provided under state law.
Civil Service Law § 201(4) and Retirement and Social Security Law § 470 prohibit negotiation of benefits provided by a public retirement system.
The Triborough Law requires an employer to continue the terms of an expired CBA while negotiating a new agreement, preserving the status quo.
However, Article 22 of the Retirement and Social Security Law prohibits noncontributory plans unless the Section 8 exception applies.
The Court rejected the Union’s argument that Section 8 extends to CBAs that have expired but are deemed to remain in effect because of the Triborough Law, noting that the legislature did not explicitly invoke the Triborough doctrine and expressly stated that eligibility to join a CBA’s retirement plan “shall not apply upon termination of such agreement” (L 2009, ch 504, part A, § 8).
The Court cited the Governor’s Program Bill Memorandum, which stated that Section 8 ensures members of an employee organization eligible to join a special retirement plan could continue to enroll after the bill’s enactment “until the date on which such agreement terminates” (Governor’s Program Bill Mem, Bill Jacket, L 2009, ch 504 at 9).
The Court reasoned that under the Union’s interpretation, a union could ensure the continuation of noncontributory pension benefits by refusing to agree on a new CBA.
The Court also rejected the Union’s argument that Section 8 would violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, stating that there were no contractual obligations to impair because the contract was no longer in effect.
The court distinguished the language of tier 6 (L 2012, ch 18, § 80), stating that the express references to “unexpired” CBAs were included in 2012 to be more plain and avoid disputes.

More ARTICLES