New York Law Review

Newark Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 83 N.Y.2d 315 (1994): Mandatory Collective Bargaining for School Bus Smoking Ban

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Newark Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 83 N.Y.2d 315 (1994)

A school district must collectively bargain with its employees regarding a ban on smoking in school buses when no students are present, as such a ban constitutes a term and condition of employment and is not preempted by statute or policy.

Summary

Newark Valley Central School District implemented a smoking ban on school buses, even when no students were present. The bus drivers’ union demanded negotiation, which the District denied. The union filed an improper practice charge. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) found the ban subject to negotiation, as neither the Education Law nor the Public Health Law mandated it. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the smoking ban was a term of employment and not preempted by law or compelling public policy. The statutes cited by the District concerned student safety and secondhand smoke, neither of which applied when buses were empty.

Facts

In early 1990, Newark Valley Central School District adopted a smoking ban that included school buses, regardless of student presence.
The union representing the bus drivers demanded negotiation over this policy.
The School District refused to negotiate.
The union filed an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging a violation of Civil Service Law.
The District argued the policy was preempted by statute and an inherent management right.

Procedural History

The matter was referred to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who ruled in favor of the union, finding no statutory preemption.
PERB confirmed the ALJ’s determination, rejecting the District’s preemption argument.
The District initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul PERB’s decision.
Supreme Court granted the petition, favoring the school district.
The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that neither statute nor regulations prohibited collective bargaining. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a ban on smoking by school bus drivers when no students are on board is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining or is preempted by statute or public policy, allowing the school district to implement it unilaterally.

Holding

No, because the smoking ban affects a term and condition of employment, and is not mandated by any law or compelling public policy; therefore, the school district was obligated to negotiate the policy with the union. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged PERB’s expertise in Taylor Law matters but asserted its own role in statutory interpretation, specifically whether the smoking policy was preempted. “Preemption,” in the Taylor Law context, means that collective bargaining of terms and conditions of employment is prohibited because a plain and clear bar in statute or policy involving ” ‘an important constitutional or statutory duty or responsibility’ ” leaves an agency with no discretion as to how an issue may be resolved. The Court found no such preemption here.

The Court examined Education Law § 3624 and its implementing regulation (8 NYCRR 156.3 [g] [5]), noting they address conduct impairing the safe operation of transportation facilities *while actually being used for the transport of* pupils.” The District cannot use this law to regulate conduct when buses are empty.

The Court also considered Public Health Law article 13-E, concerning secondhand smoke. While this legislation addresses environmental hazards caused by secondhand smoke, it does not preclude negotiation over smoking on school buses without passengers. Crucially, Public Health Law § 1399-0 (6) (i) mandates that any smoking restrictions *above* the statutory minimum be subject to collective bargaining.

Finally, the Court addressed the argument of compelling public policy. While secondhand smoke poses health hazards, the legislature had not deemed residual smoke in vehicles to warrant regulation. Therefore, no compelling public policy justified refusing to negotiate the smoking policy.

Because the regulation of smoking affects a term or condition of employment, as determined by PERB, and because a rule affecting smoking on empty buses is not mandated by law or policy, the Court concluded that the school district’s unilateral action was improper.

More ARTICLES