New York Law Review

Tag: Delegation of Power

  • Torre v. County of Nassau, 86 N.Y.2d 421 (1995): Legislative Equivalency Doctrine in Abolishing Public Employment Positions

    Torre v. County of Nassau, 86 N.Y.2d 421 (1995)

    A public employment position created by a legislative act (like a county ordinance) can only be abolished by a correlative legislative act of equal dignity, and the power to abolish such a position cannot be delegated to an administrative officer.

    Summary

    Torre, a Probation Attorney II in Nassau County, was terminated due to budget cuts. His position was originally created by a county ordinance. The County argued that the 1992 budget ordinance, which included a lump-sum salary reduction for the Probation Department, authorized the department head to eliminate positions. Torre sued, arguing his position could only be abolished by a correlative county ordinance and that the Board of Supervisors improperly delegated its authority. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Board of Supervisors violated the doctrine of legislative equivalency by delegating the authority to abolish Torre’s position, reversing the Appellate Division’s decision and reinstating the Supreme Court’s judgment, but limiting back pay and benefits to the 1992 budget year.

    Facts

    Torre was a Probation Attorney II, a position created by Nassau County ordinance. In 1991, Nassau County faced a significant budget deficit. To avoid tax increases, the Board of Supervisors sought to reduce payroll appropriations. The 1992 budget listed Torre’s position and salary but also included a lump-sum salary reduction for the Probation Department. The County argued the 1992 budget ordinance delegated authority to the Probation Department Director, through the County Executive, to allocate salary reductions and eliminate positions. Torre was terminated in February 1992 due to these budget cuts.

    Procedural History

    Torre sued to regain his job. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted his petition, ordering reinstatement with back pay and benefits. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the Board authorized the abolition of Torre’s position by directing the department head to reduce the budget and effectuate layoffs. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court judgment but limiting back pay and benefits to the 1992 budget year.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Nassau County Board of Supervisors violated the doctrine of legislative equivalency by delegating the authority to abolish a position of employment originally created by County ordinance to the County Executive and, subsequently, to the agency head.

    Holding

    Yes, because under the Nassau County Charter and the doctrine of legislative equivalency, a position created by ordinance can only be abolished by an equivalent ordinance, and the Board of Supervisors cannot delegate this power, especially where the County Charter expressly prohibits delegating duties that must be performed by ordinance.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the doctrine of legislative equivalency, which requires that a position created by a legislative act can only be abolished by a correlative legislative act. The court emphasized that the Nassau County Charter designates the Board of Supervisors as the governing body and grants it the power to create and abolish positions. The court found that the Board created Torre’s position through a county ordinance by adopting the budget with a salary line for Probation Attorney II. The Court stated, “To repeal or modify a statute requires a legislative act of equal dignity and import.”

    The Court rejected the County’s argument that the 1992 budget, combined with the Charter, authorized the County Executive to pinpoint positions for elimination, finding this created an “ambiguous and uncertain state of authority” and ran afoul of the impermissible delegation.

    Nassau County Charter § 204 prohibits the Board from delegating to the County Executive a duty “which it must exercise or perform by ordinance.” The court reasoned that because the Board created Torre’s position by ordinance, it could only abolish it by ordinance. Therefore, the Board could not delegate this power to the County Executive. The court highlighted that the purported delegation was “twice removed from the singular entity charged by law with explicitly executing its heavy impact affecting public employees’ livelihoods.”

    The Court distinguished Matter of Brayer v Lapple (58 AD2d 1020, affd 44 NY2d 741), limiting Torre’s back pay and benefits to the 1992 budget year because Torre’s job was undeniably eliminated as of 1993.

  • City of Amsterdam v. Helsby, 37 N.Y.2d 19 (1975): Constitutionality of Compulsory Arbitration for Public Employees

    City of Amsterdam v. Helsby, 37 N.Y.2d 19 (1975)

    The New York State Legislature can constitutionally delegate to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and arbitration panels the authority to resolve collective bargaining impasses between municipalities and their police and fire departments through compulsory and binding arbitration, as this does not violate the Home Rule provisions of the New York Constitution or constitute an improper delegation of legislative power.

    Summary

    The cities of Amsterdam and Buffalo challenged the constitutionality of amendments to Section 209 of the Civil Service Law, which mandated compulsory and binding arbitration for disputes between municipalities and their police and fire departments. The cities argued these amendments violated the Home Rule provisions of the New York Constitution and improperly delegated legislative power to arbitration panels. The Court of Appeals held that the amendments were constitutional, finding that they constituted a general law applicable to all municipalities and that the delegation of authority to PERB and arbitration panels was permissible with sufficient safeguards and standards.

    Facts

    The City of Amsterdam and the collective bargaining representative for its policemen and firemen reached an impasse in negotiations. The union sought compulsory and binding arbitration under the amended Section 209 of the Civil Service Law. The City of Amsterdam refused to participate and obtained a court order preventing arbitration, arguing the amendments were unconstitutional.

    Similarly, the City of Buffalo and the unions representing its policemen and firemen also reached an impasse. The unions petitioned PERB to refer the disputes to an arbitration panel. The City of Buffalo then filed an action seeking a judgment declaring Section 209, as amended, unconstitutional.

    Procedural History

    In City of Amsterdam v. Helsby, the trial court initially granted a temporary restraining order and then a final judgment preventing arbitration and declaring the amendments unconstitutional. The City of Amsterdam appealed directly to the Court of Appeals.

    In City of Buffalo v. New York State Public Employment Relations Bd., the trial court granted a judgment declaring the amendments constitutional and valid, dismissing the city’s complaint. The City of Buffalo appealed directly to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the amendments to Section 209 of the Civil Service Law, mandating compulsory and binding arbitration for disputes between municipalities and their police and fire departments, violate the Home Rule provisions of the New York Constitution?

    2. Whether the Legislature unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to the arbitration panel by enacting the amendments to Section 209 of the Civil Service Law?

    Holding

    1. No, because the amendments constitute a general law applicable to all cities, and the Home Rule powers of municipalities are subordinate to general laws enacted by the Legislature.

    2. No, because the Legislature can delegate power with reasonable safeguards and standards to an agency or commission to administer an enactment, and the Legislature established specific standards for the arbitration panel to follow.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the Home Rule provisions of the New York Constitution allow local governments to regulate the hours of work and compensation of their employees only to the extent that such regulation is not inconsistent with any general law enacted by the Legislature. Because the amendments to Section 209 are “general laws,” applicable to all cities, the local governments must yield to the arbitration panel’s decisions once an impasse is reached. A “general law” is defined as “[a] law which in terms and in effect applies alike to all counties, all counties other than those wholly included within a city, all cities, all towns or all villages.” (NY Const, art IX, § 3, subd [d], par [1].)

    Regarding the delegation of legislative authority, the Court stated, “there is no constitutional prohibition against the legislative delegation of power, with reasonable safeguards and standards, to an agency or commission established to administer an enactment.” The Legislature delegated its authority to PERB and arbitration panels with specific standards that the panels must follow, as outlined in Civil Service Law § 209, subd 4, par [c], cl [v]. Therefore, the delegation was proper and reasonable.

    The Court also addressed the City of Amsterdam’s arguments regarding the power of taxation and the one-man-one-vote principle, finding them to be without merit.