Matter of the Board of Education of the City of Buffalo v. Public Employment Relations Board, 41 N.Y.2d 90 (1976)

Judicial review of remedial provisions in an order issued by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) must be sought within the time limitations prescribed by Section 213 of the Civil Service Law, along with any review of the order’s determinative provisions; failure to do so forecloses later challenges.

Summary

The Buffalo Board of Education, facing budgetary issues, unilaterally changed the terms of employment for its tradesmen. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) found this to be an improper employer practice. When PERB sought to enforce its order, the Board of Education attempted to challenge both the findings and the remedies. The Court of Appeals held that because the Board of Education failed to seek judicial review within the statutory 30-day period, it was foreclosed from challenging any aspect of the PERB order, including the remedial provisions. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory procedures for seeking judicial review of PERB orders.

Facts

Faced with budgetary problems, the Board of Education of the City of Buffalo sought to change the terms of employment for its tradesmen employees, aiming to reduce payroll expenditures.
The Board negotiated with individual employees to change the method of compensation from an hourly wage to an annual salary, without recognizing the unions.
When negotiations failed, the board unilaterally adopted a resolution placing its skilled trade employees in graded civil service status and establishing specified annual salaries.
This effectively transferred the employees from their prior status as ungraded skilled tradesmen entitled to compensation at prevailing wage rates.
Charges were filed with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) by the Buffalo Building Trades Council and the District Council of Buffalo, alleging improper employer practices.

Procedural History

PERB determined that the Board of Education was guilty of improper employer practices under Section 209-a of the Civil Service Law.
PERB issued orders directing the Board of Education to cease and desist from the specified conduct, restore the affected employees to their status quo ante, and pay them lost compensation with interest.
More than 30 days after service of the orders, PERB instituted a proceeding to enforce the orders.
The Board of Education sought to challenge both the determinative and remedial provisions of the PERB orders in this enforcement proceeding.
Special Term annulled the PERB determination and struck the portions of the PERB orders directing restoration of the status quo ante with lost compensation.
The Appellate Division held that failure to comply with the time limitations of Section 213 foreclosed judicial review of the determinative provisions but not the remedial powers, ultimately granting the petition for enforcement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but on different grounds.

Issue(s)

Whether the Board of Education, having failed to seek judicial review of PERB’s order within the 30-day period prescribed by Section 213 of the Civil Service Law, can challenge the remedial provisions of that order in a subsequent enforcement proceeding.

Holding

No, because Section 213 sets forth the exclusive means of seeking judicial review of PERB orders, and failure to comply with the prescribed time limits forecloses any subsequent challenge to either the determinative or remedial provisions of the order.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that Section 213 provides the exclusive means for seeking judicial review of PERB orders. An aggrieved party may seek review in an Article 78 proceeding within 30 days after service of the order, or raise questions in an enforcement proceeding initiated by PERB within that same 30-day period. The Board of Education conceded that it did not meet either of these conditions.
The court found no statutory basis for differentiating between the determinative and remedial portions of a PERB order for judicial review purposes. The statute explicitly states that PERB “orders” are reviewable only in Article 78 proceedings, and the present case was not such a proceeding. Allowing such a division would be “mischievous” unless explicitly commanded by statute.
The court acknowledged potential situations where PERB might act wholly beyond its jurisdiction, which could warrant judicial review despite non-compliance with Section 213. However, this case did not present such circumstances. The Board of Education only argued that PERB erred in fashioning the remedy, not that PERB lacked jurisdiction.
The court distinguished this case from cases like Matter of Guardian Life Ins. Co. v Bohlinger, where the Legislature attempted to wholly foreclose judicial review, and Matter of Foy v Schechter, where an administrative agency acted without jurisdiction. In this case, the statute expressly provided a right of broad judicial review, subject to a reasonable time limitation.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures: “Here by critical contrast the statute expressly accords a right of broad judicial review, only attaching a reasonable time limitation for the exercise of such right.”