Lascaris v. Wyman, 31 N.Y.2d 386 (1972)
Striking workers who register with the Department of Labor and meet all other eligibility requirements are entitled to public assistance under New York Social Services Law § 131, as being “unable to maintain themselves,” and receiving such assistance does not violate the state’s policy of neutrality in labor disputes or federal labor law preemption principles.
Summary
This case addresses whether striking workers are eligible for public assistance in New York State. The Onondaga County Commissioner of Social Services sought to deny public assistance to striking workers, arguing that they were not “unable to maintain themselves” as required by Social Services Law § 131. The New York Court of Appeals held that striking workers who register with the Department of Labor and meet other eligibility requirements are entitled to public assistance. The court reasoned that the state’s long-standing administrative policy allowed such assistance and that the legislature had not clearly prohibited it. Furthermore, providing public assistance to strikers does not violate the state’s neutrality in labor disputes or federal labor law.
Facts
Members of the Communication Workers of America went on strike against the New York Telephone Company in 1971. Certain members of local unions applied for public assistance from the Onondaga County Department of Social Services. As required by Social Services Law § 131(4), the applicants registered with the local employment agency of the Department of Labor. Their applications were denied by the County Commissioner.
Procedural History
The County Commissioner brought an action against the State Commissioner seeking confirmation of his decision to deny assistance. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing collateral estoppel and res judicata based on a prior case, Lascaris v. Wyman (61 Misc.2d 212). The Supreme Court, Special Term, ruled in favor of the County Commissioner. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the State Commissioner and directing the county to pay public assistance to eligible striking workers.
Issue(s)
Whether striking workers who register with the Department of Labor and meet all other eligibility requirements are entitled to public assistance under New York Social Services Law § 131.
Holding
Yes, because the state’s long-standing administrative policy allows such assistance, the legislature has not clearly prohibited it, and providing public assistance to strikers does not violate the state’s neutrality in labor disputes or federal labor law.
Court’s Reasoning
The court relied on the language of Social Services Law § 131(1), which states that social services officials have a duty to provide for those “unable to maintain themselves.” Subdivision 4 of the law stipulates that assistance should not be given to an “employable person” who has not registered with the Department of Labor or has refused to accept suitable employment. The court reasoned that a person on strike does not necessarily “refuse” employment merely by going on strike. Citing Strato-O-Seal Mfg. Co. v. Scott, 72 Ill. App. 2d 480 and ITT Lamp Div. of Int. Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. Minter, 435 F.2d 989, the court noted that other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion under similar statutes. The court also noted the 1971 amendment to subdivision 4 which defined “employable” person. The court suggested that the amendment could be considered legislative approval of the State Commissioner’s long-standing construction of the statute.
The court addressed the argument that providing welfare benefits to strikers is equivalent to state subsidization of the strike, violating the state’s policy of neutrality. The court stated that such a policy is often an “admirable fiction.” It argued that the State may not be acting neutrally if it allows strikers to obtain public assistance, but it also may not be neutral if it denies them benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled. The court quoted ITT Lamp Div. of Int. Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. Minter, 435 F.2d 989, 994-995, that welfare programs address a more basic social need than unemployment compensation. The court concluded that if the legislature considers the current policy impermissible, it should manifest its design in clear and unmistakable terms. Until then, the court will construe the statute as it stands and has been administered.
The court rejected the argument that a striking worker should be deemed ineligible for assistance because they will likely return to their “struck” employer, thus “refusing to accept any other employment.” The court pointed out that the applicants in this case have registered for other employment and that there is no evidence that they failed to attend job interviews or refused referrals.
Finally, the court dismissed the argument that granting public assistance to strikers constitutes an unconstitutional interference with federal labor law. The court stated that the State’s interest in providing welfare to its needy citizens is substantial, and it will not assume that Congress has deprived the State of the power to serve that interest absent a clear expression of congressional intent.