Local 456 v. City of New York, 21 N.Y.2d 39 (1967)
A municipality may grant the exclusive privilege of dues check-off to a union representing a majority of its employees without violating the due process or equal protection rights of minority unions.
Summary
Local 832, a minority union, challenged New York City’s plan to grant exclusive dues check-off privileges to District Council 37, the majority union representing city employees. Local 832 argued this violated their due process and equal protection rights. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the challenge, holding that the city’s policy was rationally related to the legitimate goal of maintaining stability in labor relations. The court found no statutory or constitutional impediment to the city’s decision to provide a form of union security to the majority representative while denying it to minority unions.
Facts
The City of New York initially granted dues check-off privileges to all employee organizations. Subsequently, the city began recognizing exclusive bargaining agents based on majority representation. The Mayor then proposed an executive order granting exclusive check-off privileges to the exclusive bargaining agents and withdrawing it from all other unions. District Council 37 was the exclusive bargaining representative for nonsupervisory clerical employees, while Local 832 was a minority union representing some of those employees. Local 832 objected to the loss of check-off privileges.
Procedural History
Local 832 initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the city to continue dues check-off for its members and to enjoin the city from granting exclusive check-off privileges. The Special Term dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term’s order. Local 832 appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the Mayor’s proposed executive order granting exclusive dues check-off privileges to majority unions violates Section 93-b of the General Municipal Law.
2. Whether the Mayor’s proposed executive order granting exclusive dues check-off privileges to majority unions deprives minority unions of due process or equal protection of the laws under the Federal and State Constitutions.
3. Whether the withdrawal of the dues check-off from a minority union violates its members’ freedom of association.
Holding
1. No, because Section 93-b of the General Municipal Law is permissive, not obligatory, and does not control a municipality’s selection of unions for check-off privileges.
2. No, because the proposed executive order is reasonably related to the attainment of a permissible objective, namely, maintaining stability in labor relations.
3. No, because the city’s labor policy does not deny members of the minority union the right to meet, speak, publish, or collect dues through other means.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the Mayor has broad executive power and discretion to regulate the terms of employment and manage the city’s affairs. Section 93-b of the General Municipal Law merely authorizes municipalities to deduct union dues; it does not mandate doing so or require extending the privilege to all unions. The court found the proposed policy consistent with the state’s legislative policy as reflected in the Taylor Act, which grants check-off rights to majority unions. The court emphasized that the policy of granting exclusive check-off to majority unions is common in private industry and other governmental bodies and serves the legitimate goal of promoting stability in labor relations and avoiding work stoppages. The court cited Railway Employes’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 233-235, noting the requirements of due process are satisfied as long as the challenged measure is reasonably related to the attainment of a permissible objective. Regarding the freedom of association argument, the court stated, “Neither the First Amendment nor any other constitutional provision entitles them to the special aid of the city’s collection and disbursing facilities.”