Matter of Nelson v. Board of Education of City of Buffalo, 47 N.Y.2d 751 (1979)

When a public body authorized to classify and grade positions effectively does so, Section 220 of the Labor Law regarding prevailing wages does not apply.

Summary

This case concerns a dispute over which public body has the authority to classify and grade positions for laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed by the Buffalo Board of Education. The Court of Appeals held that if a public body with the authority to classify positions and allocate them to grades has effectively done so, Section 220 of the Labor Law, which concerns prevailing wages, does not apply. The Court found that the Buffalo Board of Education appeared to be the body with authoritative jurisdiction over salaries, and its grading of positions precluded the application of Section 220. The absence of evidence demonstrating that the Board’s grading was ineffective led the Court to affirm the lower court’s order.

Facts

The case involved a dispute regarding the classification and grading of positions for permanent laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed by the Buffalo Board of Education. The central issue revolved around which public entity possessed the authority to classify these positions and allocate them to specific grades. Section 220 of the Labor Law dictates prevailing wage requirements, but is not applicable if positions are properly classified and graded by the authorized body.

Procedural History

The lower courts considered the matter, and the case eventually reached the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reviewed the submissions to determine which body had the power to classify and grade positions within the Buffalo Board of Education.

Issue(s)

Whether the Buffalo Board of Education, or another public body, possessed the authority to classify positions and allocate them to grades for permanent laborers, workmen, and mechanics, thereby precluding the application of Section 220 of the Labor Law.

Holding

No, because the Buffalo Board of Education appeared to be the body with authoritative jurisdiction over salaries, and its grading of positions precluded the application of Section 220. The Court found no demonstration that the grading was ineffective or that the power resided in some other public body.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court examined the Rules of the Buffalo Municipal Service Commission, the Education Law, and the City Charter of Buffalo to determine the proper authority for classifying positions and setting salaries. The Court noted that the Buffalo Board of Education was once explicitly vested with the power to fix salaries under the Education Law, although that section was repealed. However, other provisions in the Education Law suggested that the Board of Education retained its salary-fixing power. The City Charter purported to vest the power to fix salaries in the City Common Council, but the Board of Education had been delegated the power to fix the salaries of its own employees. The Court reasoned that the Board of Education appeared to be “the body having authoritative jurisdiction over * * * salaries”, and the Municipal Civil Service Commission would defer to its compensation plan for grading purposes. Because there was no law barring the Board of Education from exercising these powers, and no provisions giving the Municipal Civil Service Commission exclusive power to allocate positions to grades, the Court concluded that the grading was effective. The Court stated that, “In the absence of any law barring either the Board of Education or the Common Council exercising these powers, and no provisions in the Rules of the Municipal Civil Service Commission giving that agency exclusive power to allocate positions to grades except where the authorized body has adopted a compensation plan, it is difficult to conclude from the present record or the submissions that the instant grading was ineffective. If effective, the grading, of course, precludes application of section 220 of the Labor Law.” Therefore, the Court held that the grading precluded the application of Section 220 of the Labor Law and affirmed the lower court’s order.