Preview:

Argued February 8, 2006; decided March 28, 2006
Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 13 AD3d 879, affirmed.
Matter of Town of Orangetown v Orangetown Policemen's Benevolent Assn., 18 AD3d 879, modified.
{**6 NY3d at 570} OPINION OF THE COURT
R.S. Smith, J.
We hold that police discipline may not be a subject of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law when the Legislature has expressly committed disciplinary authority over a police department to local officials.
Facts and Procedural History
Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl.
Relations Bd.
The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York (NYCPBA) seeks to annul a decision by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that the City need not bargain with the NYCPBA over five subjects, even though those subjects had been dealt with in an expired collective bargaining agreement. The expired agreement had provided: (1) that police officers being questioned in a departmental investigation would have up to four hours to confer with counsel; (2) that certain guidelines for interrogation of police officers would remain unchanged; (3) that a "joint subcommittee" would "develop procedures" to assure the timely resolution of disciplinary charges;
(4) that a pilot program would be established to refer disciplinary matters to an agency outside the police department; and (5) that employees charged but not found guilty could petition to have the records of disciplinary proceedings expunged. PERB found that all these provisions concerned "prohibited subjects of bargaining."
Supreme Court upheld PERB's decision on the ground that the New York City Charter and Administrative Code, as interpreted in Matter of City of New York v MacDonald (201 AD2d 258, 259 [1st Dept 1994]), required that the discipline of New York City police officers be left to the discretion of the Police Commissioner. The Appellate Division affirmed, as do we.{**6 NY3d at 571}
Matter of Town of Orangetown v Orangetown Policemen's Benevolent Assn.
The Town of Orangetown and its Town Board brought this proceeding against the Orangetown Policemen's Benevolent Association (Orangetown PBA) and a police officer, seeking to stay arbitration of a dispute between the Town and the officer over a disciplinary issue. The Orangetown PBA and the officer had sought arbitration pursuant to article 15 of the collective bargaining agreement between the Town and the union, which prescribed detailed procedures, culminating in an arbitration, for any "dispute concerning the discipline or discharge" of an Orangetown police officer. Supreme Court granted the application to stay arbitration. Relying on Matter of Rockland County Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v Town of Clarkstown (149 AD2d 516 [2d Dept 1989]) and Matter of Town of Greenburgh (Police Assn. of Town of Greenburgh) (94 AD2d 771, 772 [2d Dept 1983]), Supreme Court held that article 15 is invalid under the Rockland County Police Act, because that act commits police discipline to the discretion of local authorities. The Appellate Division affirmed.
The specific issue that gave rise to this case is now moot, because the Town and the officer have settled their differences, but the Town and the Orangetown PBA continue to disagree about article 15's validity, and both sides have asked us to decide that question. We [*2]therefore convert the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action and declare that, as the courts below held, article 15 is invalid.
Discussion
We confront, not for the first time, a tension between the "strong and sweeping policy of the State to support collective bargaining under the Taylor Law" (Matter of Cohoes City School Dist. v Cohoes Teachers Assn., 40 NY2d 774, 778 [1976]) and a competing policy

Download 2006_02288.pdf

New York Law