37 N.Y.2d 752 (1975)

The Taylor Law applies only to employment that is unequivocally or substantially public; where employment satisfies some aspects of public employment but not others, the non-public aspects must be sufficiently substantial to exclude it from regulation under the Taylor Law.

Summary

This case addresses whether the New York Public Library (NYPL) is a “public employer” subject to the Taylor Law, which governs labor relations for public employees in New York. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) asserted jurisdiction over a labor dispute at NYPL, claiming the City of New York was a joint employer. The Court of Appeals held that NYPL was not a public employer under the Taylor Law because its employment structure did not meet the law’s requirements, affirming the lower court’s decision. The dissent argued that the city’s extensive control over the library’s labor relations warranted PERB jurisdiction.

Facts

The New York Public Library, formed from the merger of private trusts and the New York Free Circulating Library, receives substantial funding from the City of New York (approximately 80% of its operating costs). The city owns most of the books and pays most employee salaries. The union representing library employees bargains directly with the city, which determines salaries, benefits, and other terms of employment. The library is subject to city budget controls and hiring freezes.

Procedural History

Richard M. Brower, a library employee, challenged the enforceability of an “agency shop” agreement between the library and its union before PERB. PERB initially rejected the complaint, citing a lack of jurisdiction. Upon the City’s petition, PERB reconsidered and declared the City a joint employer with the library, asserting jurisdiction. The Appellate Division reversed PERB’s decision. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the New York Public Library is a “public employer” within the meaning of the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law, Article 14).
2. Whether PERB has the authority to declare the City of New York a joint employer with the New York Public Library.

Holding

1. No, because the New York Public Library’s employment structure does not unequivocally or substantially meet the definition of public employment under the Taylor Law.
2. No, because the New York Public Library is not a public employer, joint or otherwise, within the terms of the Taylor Law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the Taylor Law applies only to employment that is “unequivocally or substantially public.” While the NYPL employment had some characteristics of public employment, it also possessed significant non-public characteristics. The court found these non-public aspects sufficiently substantial to exclude NYPL from regulation under the Taylor Law. The court did not determine whether the Taylor Law was intended to cover only employees excluded from the jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Act but focused on whether NYPL met the definition of public employer under the Taylor Law. The court emphasized that the library, unlike the city, is neither a public benefit corporation nor an agency exercising governmental power. The dissenting judge argued that the city’s overwhelming control over the library’s employee relations should make it a joint employer, aligning the library’s labor relations with those of other city employees. The dissent cited that PERB has broad discretion to determine what “would best effectuate the purposes” of the statute. The dissent highlighted the fact that the library’s employees are practically city employees, receiving the same benefits and salaries as other city employees. The dissent further argued that the legislative intent would be better effectuated by vesting jurisdiction in PERB, the agency created to deal with governmental employment’s special nature. The majority did not find this reasoning persuasive.