Matter of Professional, Clerical, Technical Employees Assn. (City of Buffalo), 43 N.Y.2d 542 (1978)

An arbitrator’s award that reinstates a municipal employee who admitted to accepting gratuities, even in exchange for immunity, violates public policy by undermining the municipality’s duty to maintain integrity in its ranks.

Summary

This case concerns the enforceability of a labor arbitration award that reinstated a city employee who had admitted to accepting gratuities from a vendor. The New York Court of Appeals held that the award violated public policy. The court reasoned that a municipality has a non-delegable duty to ensure the integrity of its public servants. Allowing an arbitrator to reinstate an employee who admitted to criminal complicity compromises this duty and undermines public trust. Even though the employee received immunity from prosecution, the public policy against corruption outweighs the collective bargaining agreement.

Facts

A public works supervisor employed by the City of Buffalo admitted to accepting gratuities from a salesman who regularly conducted business with the city. The supervisor testified during the salesman’s bribery trial in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution. The salesman was convicted. The city subsequently discharged the supervisor based on his admission of misconduct.

Procedural History

The employee’s union filed a grievance challenging the discharge. The arbitrator ruled that the penalty of discharge was too severe and ordered the employee’s reinstatement. The City appealed. The Appellate Division vacated the arbitrator’s award. The union appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an arbitration award that reinstates a municipal employee who has admitted to accepting gratuities from a vendor violates public policy, thereby rendering the award unenforceable.

Holding

Yes, because overriding public policy considerations prevent a municipality from bargaining away its duty to maintain ethical standards for public officers and employees and from being restricted in its power to enforce those standards by discharging those who participate in criminal acts.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that municipalities have a fundamental obligation to maintain integrity within their ranks, which stems from the duty to establish ethical standards for public officers and employees. This duty cannot be bargained away through collective bargaining agreements or delegated to arbitrators. The court emphasized that an elected official must have the ability to remove dishonest employees to effectively fulfill their obligation to the public.

The court noted that the arbitrator acknowledged the employee’s misconduct and violation of public trust but nevertheless deemed the penalty too severe. The court found this to be an impermissible invasion of the municipality’s authority. The court cited previous cases, emphasizing that the tenor of ethical standards governing conduct in municipal government should not be molded by the pressures of collective bargaining nor left to the discretion of individual arbitrators. The dissenting opinion argued that the city should have moved to stay the grievance proceedings initially, but the majority held that the arbitrator’s award was a nullity due to the overriding public policy concerns.

As the dissenting opinion stated, “Municipal authorities may neither bargain away their duty to establish ethical standards for public officers and employees (see General Municipal Law, § 806, subd 1) nor be restricted in their power to enforce those standards by discharging those who participate in criminal acts (see Public Officers Law, § 30; Civil Service Law, § 75…)”