Vestal Central School Dist. v. PERB, 75 N.Y.2d 629 (1990)

A school district’s decision to contract with a Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) for an academic summer school program is not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining with teachers’ unions, due to legislative intent expressed in Education Law § 1950 (4)(bb).

Summary

Three school districts contracted with BOCES for a summer school program, replacing their own programs. The teachers’ unions claimed this was a mandatory subject of bargaining. PERB agreed, ordering the districts to cease and desist. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the legislature, in Education Law § 1950(4)(bb), intended that school districts’ decisions to contract with BOCES for academic summer programs not be subject to mandatory collective bargaining, evidenced by the statutory scheme for BOCES program implementation and teacher job protections outlined in Education Law § 3014-a.

Facts

Prior to 1984, the three school districts each conducted separate summer school programs, employing teachers who were members of the respondent unions. Their collective bargaining agreements covered summer teaching terms. In 1984, the Legislature amended the Education Law to permit BOCES to offer academic summer programs. In 1985, the school districts contracted with Monroe BOCES to provide a combined summer program for their students, replacing their own programs. The BOCES program offered a wider selection of courses and served more students than the districts’ previous programs.

Procedural History

The unions filed improper practice charges with PERB, alleging the districts unilaterally contracted out work exclusively performed by bargaining unit teachers. PERB agreed with the Administrative Law Judge that the districts violated Civil Service Law § 209-a (1)(d). PERB ordered the districts to cease and desist. The school districts filed an Article 78 proceeding, which was dismissed by the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and granted the school districts’ petition.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a school district’s decision to contract with BOCES for an academic summer school program in place of their own is a mandatory subject of negotiation under the Taylor Law.

Holding

1. No, because Education Law § 1950 (4)(bb) demonstrates a legislative intention that such decisions not be subject to mandatory collective bargaining.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court determined that the central legal question was a matter of statutory construction. While acknowledging PERB’s expertise in matters under the Civil Service Law, the Court asserted that statutory construction is a function for the courts, and PERB is accorded no special deference in interpreting statutes. The Court found that Education Law § 1950 (4)(bb) clearly manifests a legislative intention that a school district’s decision to contract with BOCES for an academic summer school program not be subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The Court noted that while the statute does not explicitly prohibit collective bargaining, legislative intent can be implied from the words of the enactment. The Court stated that, to overcome the state policy favoring bargaining, any implied intention not to mandate negotiation must be “plain and clear” or “inescapably implicit.”

The Court pointed to the statute’s requirements for joint action by at least two school districts and approval by the Commissioner of Education, on a tight timetable, which would be difficult to meet if bargaining were required. More significantly, the Court emphasized Education Law § 1950 (4) (bb) (5), which addresses job protections for teachers in the event of a BOCES takeover. This section incorporates Education Law § 3014-a, which governs teachers’ rights when a BOCES takes over a program, including preferential hiring without loss of seniority-based benefits. The Court concluded that the Legislature’s incorporation of section 3014-a manifested an intention to establish a comprehensive package within the Education Law for a school district’s decision to contract for a BOCES program, thereby withdrawing that decision from the mandatory negotiating process. The court stated, “Given this statutory scheme, we are satisfied that the Legislature’s deliberate incorporation of section 3014-a governing teachers’ rights in the event of a BOCES takeover manifested an intention to establish, within the Education Law, a comprehensive package for a school district’s decision to contract for a BOCES program, and thus to withdraw that decision from the mandatory negotiating process.”