New York Law Review

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn. v. Newman, 46 N.Y.2d 1005 (1979): Upholding PERB’s Election Certification Process

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn. v. Newman, 46 N.Y.2d 1005 (1979)

The method selected by the Director of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to investigate alleged forgeries in a union election will be upheld if it is reasonably designed to detect the type of forgery alleged, and no alternative method was proposed until after the results were known.

Summary

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) challenged a PERB order certifying the Public Employees Federation (PEF) as the exclusive representative of state employees. CSEA alleged the election was tainted by forgery. The Appellate Division initially disapproved of PERB’s method for resolving the forgery claim and remitted for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating PERB’s determination, holding that PERB’s chosen method was reasonably designed to detect the alleged forgery, and CSEA proposed no alternatives until after the results of the election were known. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s resolution of the other issues raised by CSEA.

Facts

Following an election, PERB certified PEF as the exclusive representative of state employees in the professional, scientific, and technical services unit. CSEA objected, claiming the election was tainted by forgery. The specific nature of the alleged forgery was not detailed in the Court of Appeals decision, but the Court emphasized the method used by PERB was designed to detect *the type* of forgery alleged.

Procedural History

CSEA initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging PERB’s certification of PEF. The Appellate Division accepted most of PERB’s determinations but annulled the order and remitted for further proceedings on the forgery complaint. PERB and both unions appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating PERB’s original determination.

Issue(s)

Whether PERB’s method of resolving and rejecting CSEA’s claim that the election was tainted by forgery was arbitrary and capricious.

Holding

No, because the method selected by the Director of PERB was reasonably designed to detect the only type of forgery which was alleged to have occurred, and no alternative method was proposed until after the method was employed and the results were known.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals agreed with the reasoning of Presiding Justice Mahoney at the Appellate Division. The Court emphasized the director’s method was appropriate for the specific type of forgery alleged. Crucially, CSEA did not propose any alternative methods for detecting the forgery until after the director’s method had been used and the results of the election were known. The Court found “no basis whatsoever for concluding that the director acted arbitrarily and capriciously in choosing this method for resolving the forgery claim.” This suggests a level of deference to PERB’s expertise in election administration and investigation of irregularities. The decision implies that a challenge to PERB’s investigative methods requires demonstrating the method was unreasonable *at the time it was chosen*, not just ineffective in hindsight. The Court did not elaborate on the nature of the forgery, but it emphasized that PERB’s method was tailored to the *specific type* of forgery alleged. The Court summarily affirmed the Appellate Division’s resolution of the other issues raised by CSEA, indicating that those issues were less significant or had been adequately addressed by the lower court.

More ARTICLES