Board of Collective Bargaining v. City of New York, 79 N.Y.2d 120 (1992)
A public employer must bargain in good faith with its employees’ union over terms and conditions of employment, and a neutral labor relations board’s determination on bargainability is entitled to deference unless arbitrary or capricious.
Summary
This case concerns whether New York City committed an improper public employer practice by unilaterally requiring employees to disclose and pay debts owed to the City as a condition of employment or promotion, without prior negotiation with municipal employee unions. The Board of Collective Bargaining (the Board) determined that this policy affected wages and terms of employment and thus required bargaining. The Court of Appeals held that the Board’s determination was entitled to deference and should not be overturned unless arbitrary or capricious. The Court reinstated the Board’s determination regarding the repayment agreement but affirmed the lower court’s ruling on the questionnaire.
Facts
In 1986, New York City implemented a policy requiring all applicants for employment or promotion to disclose and agree to repay any debts owed to the City. The policy was instituted via a Personnel Policy and Procedure Bulletin, without prior negotiation with municipal employee unions. Applicants were required to complete a form detailing home addresses, motor vehicle registrations, unpaid parking violations, public assistance overpayments, and state and city income tax filings. The form also included a repayment agreement, where applicants agreed to repay debts via lump sum or payroll deductions, with failure to repay potentially leading to disciplinary action.
Procedural History
Three municipal employee unions filed improper practice petitions with the Board challenging the policy. The Board ruled that the repayment agreement affected wages and terms of employment and enjoined its use, while allowing the questionnaire for new hires only. The City sought review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, and Supreme Court annulled the Board’s decision. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted the Board leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the City’s policy of requiring employees to disclose and repay debts owed to the City as a condition of employment or promotion constituted a managerial prerogative exempt from collective bargaining?
2. Whether, if not a managerial prerogative, the policy affected terms and conditions of employment requiring good-faith bargaining with the employee unions?
Holding
1. No, because the Board reasonably determined the policy was primarily a revenue-raising measure, not a legitimate employment qualification related to character or reputation.
2. Yes, with respect to the repayment agreement, because the potential for payroll deductions directly affects wages, a mandatory subject of bargaining. No, with respect to the questionnaire for promotion candidates, because the information sought was largely a matter of public record and did not constitute a significant intrusion on privacy.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that under the Taylor Law and the New York City Collective Bargaining Law, public employers must bargain in good faith over wages, hours, and working conditions. While managerial prerogatives are excluded from mandatory bargaining, their practical impact on employees may be bargainable. The Court emphasized the Board’s role as a neutral adjudicative agency with expertise in public sector labor relations, stating that the Board’s determination on bargainability is entitled to deference unless arbitrary or capricious.
The Court found that the Board reasonably concluded that the City’s policy was primarily a revenue-raising measure, rather than a legitimate employment qualification relating to character and reputation. The Court pointed to the Koch memorandum and the City’s own concession that the policy aimed to recover monies owed expeditiously. The Court found a rational basis for the Board’s conclusion that the payroll deduction aspect of the repayment agreement affected wages, a mandatory subject of bargaining, citing Association of Surrogates & Supreme Ct. Reporters v State of New York, 79 NY2d 39 to underscore the impact of a 10% payroll deduction.
However, the Court disagreed with the Board’s determination regarding the questionnaire for promotion candidates, finding that the information sought was largely public record and that the expectation of privacy was minimal. The Court distinguished Matter of Board of Educ. v New York State Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 75 NY2d 660, noting that the questionnaire in that case was far more intrusive. The Court concluded that no rational balancing of interests could support a finding that the questionnaire altered a term or condition of employment.
The Court emphasized that “[s]o long as PERB’s interpretation is legally permissible and so long as there is no breach of constitutional rights and protections, the courts have no power to substitute another interpretation’”.