Matter of Professional, Clerical, Technical Employees Association v. Buffalo Board of Education, 90 N.Y.2d 364 (1997)
A public employer can voluntarily agree through collective bargaining to give promotional preference to certain members of an eligible list, provided a probationary period precedes their permanent appointment, without violating public policy or infringing on statutory appointment discretion.
Summary
The Court of Appeals addressed whether an arbitrator’s award requiring the Buffalo Board of Education to promote the highest-scoring bargaining unit member on a civil service eligible list, as per their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), violated public policy by restricting the Board’s statutory discretion under Civil Service Law § 61. The Court held that such an agreement is permissible because the Board retained ultimate authority through a probationary period. This case clarifies the balance between collective bargaining rights and statutory obligations in public sector employment.
Facts
Two separate grievances were filed by the Professional, Clerical, Technical Employees Association (PCTEA) against the Buffalo Board of Education. In the first (PCTEA I), Melvin Cross, the highest-scoring PCTEA member on the promotional eligible list for Associate Account Clerk, was passed over for three vacancies. In the second (PCTEA II), Christine Czosek, the highest-ranked PCTEA unit member, was not offered a Senior Typist position. The PCTEA argued these actions violated their CBA, which they contended included a practice of promoting the highest-ranked unit member. Arbitrators ruled in favor of the PCTEA in both cases.
Procedural History
In PCTEA I, the Supreme Court confirmed the arbitrator’s award, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the CBA improperly restricted the Board’s discretion. In PCTEA II, the Supreme Court also confirmed the award, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that while an agreement to promote the highest scorer was not per se prohibited, it must be express and not implied from past practice. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in both cases.
Issue(s)
1. Whether an arbitrator’s award requiring the Buffalo Board of Education to promote the highest-scoring bargaining unit member on a civil service eligible list, as required by the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, is void as violative of public policy in that it restricts the statutory discretion vested in the appointing authority under Civil Service Law § 61 to select one of the three highest-ranked candidates on an eligible list.
Holding
Yes, because an appointing authority can voluntarily bargain regarding the exercise of its discretion under Civil Service Law § 61, and the probationary period provided sufficient means for the board to assess the appointee’s fitness, thus, the board did not relinquish ultimate appointment authority.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that while Civil Service Law § 61 grants discretion to appoint one of the top three candidates, this discretion can be voluntarily limited through collective bargaining. The Court highlighted the importance of the probationary period, during which the Board can terminate an appointee if their performance is unsatisfactory. This probationary period allows the Board to assess qualities not measured by the competitive exam, ensuring merit and fitness. The Court distinguished between restrictions imposed by external sources (impermissible) and self-imposed limitations through bargaining (permissible). Citing Matter of Heslin v City of Cohoes, 74 AD2d 393, 399, the court reasoned that the limitation was “a voluntary surrender by the appointing authority of the full range of possibilities available to it for the duration of the contract period.” Because the Board retained the right to dismiss an unsatisfactory employee during the probationary period, the agreement was not against public policy. The court also noted that the appointment of the highest-scoring candidate aligns with the policy of selecting qualified civil servants based on merit, without political influence. The arbitrator’s findings of an agreement and past practice were also upheld, emphasizing the enforceability of collectively bargained terms, even if not explicitly in the CBA itself.