11 N.Y.3d 76 (2008)
A public employer’s decision regarding its primary mission, such as implementing an inmate classification system mandated by statute, is not subject to mandatory collective bargaining, although the impact of such a decision on employees’ terms and conditions of employment may be.
Summary
Erie County and its Sheriff were accused of improperly transferring exclusive bargaining unit work by assigning correction officers and deputy sheriffs to guard both sentenced and unsentenced inmates after implementing a unified classification system. The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) found the County committed an improper employment practice. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Sheriff’s implementation of a classification system, as required by Correction Law § 500-b, was a policy decision related to the primary mission of ensuring inmate safety and security, and thus not subject to mandatory bargaining, although the impact of that decision may be.
Facts
The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) represented correction officers who guarded sentenced inmates at the Erie County Correctional Facility. The Teamsters Local 264 represented deputy sheriffs who guarded unsentenced inmates at the Erie County Holding Center and an adjacent “Annex.” In 2000, control of the Correctional Facility was transferred to the Erie County Sheriff. Due to overcrowding at the Holding Center and vacancies at the Correctional Facility, the State Commission of Correction directed the Sheriff to utilize a unified classification system per Correction Law § 500-b. The Sheriff implemented a single classification system, resulting in the commingling of sentenced and unsentenced inmates, and the assignment of both correction officers and deputy sheriffs to guard both types of inmates.
Procedural History
The unions filed improper practice charges, and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in their favor. PERB affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The County commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging PERB’s determination. Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Appellate Division, which confirmed PERB’s determination. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment, granting the petition and annulling PERB’s determination.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sheriff was required to collectively bargain with the unions before implementing a classification policy that was satisfactory to the State Commission of Correction and that resulted in the assignment of unit work to non-unit employees.
Holding
No, because the Sheriff’s implementation of a formal and objective inmate classification system, as mandated by Correction Law § 500-b and related regulations, constitutes a non-bargainable policy decision relating to the primary mission of ensuring inmate safety and security. The impact of that decision, if any, on the contracts between the parties, however, is subject to bargaining.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that a public employer’s decisions are not bargainable if they are inherently and fundamentally policy decisions relating to the primary mission of the employer, citing Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 75 NY2d 660, 669 (1990). While policy decisions themselves are exempt from bargaining, their impact is not, citing West Irondequoit Teachers Assn. v Helsby, 35 NY2d 46 (1974). The Court emphasized that Correction Law § 500-b directs the Sheriff to exercise good judgment and discretion to ensure the safety, security, and good order of the jail. The Sheriff is charged with implementing and maintaining a formal and objective system for the consistent classification of all inmates, considering factors like criminal history, prior escapes, and mental/medical illness, without regard to adjudication status or collective bargaining units.
The court found PERB’s determination that petitioners committed an improper practice was not entitled to deference, citing Matter of Newark Val. Cent. School Dist. v Public Empl. Relations Bd., 83 NY2d 315, 320 (1994). Once the Sheriff implemented such a system, the impact of that decision, if any, upon the contracts between the parties is subject to bargaining. The Court stated, “Given the statutory requirement that the Sheriff implement and maintain a formal and objective classification system, we conclude that PERB’s determination that petitioners committed an improper practice by unilaterally transferring unit work to nonunit employees is not entitled to deference.”