Nassau Chapter of the Civil Serv. Emps. Assn., Inc. v. County of Nassau, 49 N.Y.2d 561 (1980)

Civil service employees of Nassau County are entitled to have their prior service for the county as participants in a Federally funded employment program (CETA) credited towards salary computation as per the collective bargaining agreement.

Summary

This case concerns a dispute over whether employees of Nassau County who transitioned from positions funded by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) to civil service positions are entitled to have their CETA service credited towards their salary under the collective bargaining agreement. The CSEA argued that these employees should be placed in the incremental salary plan, considering their initial CETA employment date. The Court of Appeals held that the CETA workers were indeed county employees during their CETA tenure and are entitled to the benefit of the incremental graded salary plan, as they commenced service with the county before the cutoff date specified in the collective bargaining agreement.

Facts

Prior to January 1, 1977, Nassau County hired individuals under the CETA program to perform work in job titles included in the negotiating unit represented by CSEA. These individuals were paid by county check, supervised by county employees, and received benefits similar to other county employees, except for participation in the New York State Employees Retirement System. When these individuals secured civil service positions after January 1, 1977, the county placed them in the nonincremental salary plan, leading to this dispute. CSEA argued that their county employment commenced with their CETA positions, entitling them to the incremental salary plan.

Procedural History

CSEA brought an action seeking a declaration that the CETA workers were entitled to placement in the incremental salary plan. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of CSEA, finding that the workers came within the contract definition of employees. The Appellate Division reversed, determining that county service commenced only upon obtaining civil service status. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether individuals working for Nassau County under the CETA program were employees of the county during their CETA tenure.
2. Whether the collective bargaining agreement provision continuing the incremental graded salary plan for employees commencing county service prior to December 31, 1976, applies only to those employees who commenced service with the county in a permanent civil service position prior to the cutoff date.

Holding

1. Yes, because the county paid the CETA workers’ salaries through county accounts, had the power to hire and fire them, and exercised direct control and supervision over their work.
2. No, because the collective bargaining agreement defines an “employee” as an individual who is “in the negotiating unit,” and the CETA workers, holding covered job titles, were in that unit and commenced service in the county’s employ before December 31, 1976.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the CETA workers met the established criteria for being considered county employees, referencing Matter of Board of Educ. v Nyquist, 45 NY2d 975, and Matter of Morton, 284 NY 167. The court highlighted that salaries were paid through county accounts, the county controlled hiring and firing, and the county directly supervised the work. Moreover, the court noted that the collective bargaining agreement defined an “employee” as anyone “in the negotiating unit,” which included the CETA workers holding covered job titles. The court found no basis in the contract to exclude these workers from the incremental salary plan, stating that whether the employees were classified as “temporary” was not determinative, as the contract provision did not distinguish based on employment status. The court emphasized that the county obtained the benefit of the employees’ CETA experience and could not now argue that such experience should be ignored for salary purposes. The court further stated, “Having obtained the benefit of the employees’ CETA experience, the county may not now argue that such experience should be ignored for purposes of the contractual salary provision at issue.” The dissenting judges favored affirming the Appellate Division’s decision for the reasons stated in that court’s memorandum.