Failure to use existing Taylor Law contract disciplinary procedures to discipline police officers following the Court of Appeals ruling in Town of Wallkill v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. may be challenged

To contact us Click HERE
Failure to use existing Taylor Law contract disciplinaryprocedures to discipline police officers following the Court of Appeals rulingin Town of Wallkill v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. may be challenged
Wallkill v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. (Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Town of Wallkill Police Dept. Unit, Orange County Local 836), 2012 NY Slip Op 07146

The City of Schenectady, relying on the recent decision bythe Court of Appeals in Town of Wallkill v Civil Service Employees. Association, Inc., has announced that final disciplinary hearing determinations involving members of the City’s policeforce would be made by its Public Safety Commissioner, Wayne Bennett, ratherthan submitted to arbitration as otherwise provided by a collectivebargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law Article 14].

Essentially Wallkill holds 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." NYPPL’s summary of the Wallkill decision is posted on theInternet at http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/negotiating-disciplinary-procedures.html.
A Schenectady Gazette news item published Saturday, November 3, 2012 reports that a union representing City of Schenectady’s police officers isexpected to challenge the City’s decision and ask the Public EmploymentRelations Board [PERB] to determine which controls with respect to disciplinary actions involving Schenectady police officers: the Wallkill decision or the collective bargaining agreement..
The union, relying on certain provisions in a plan adopted bythe City pursuant to the Optional City Government Law, enacted by Chapter 444 of the Laws of 1914, contends that this plan controls in this instance. Schenectady is reported to have adopted such an“optional city plan” on November 6, 1934.*
Section 1.4 of “Handbook for City Officials” published bythe New York Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials [Revised 2011]provides some background to the Law while various provisions of the Optional City Government Law arediscussed by the court in Cleveland v City of Watertown, 90 Misc. 66.**
The Attorney General hasobserved that although the Optional City Government Law was repealed in 1939 byChapter 765 of the Laws of 1939, “any plan adopted by a city under the OptionalCity Government Law remains in effect until it is repealed or succeeded bylocal law” [Informal Opinions of the Attorney General 98-5].

Assuming, but not conceding, that PERB has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Union's complaint, another consideration that may impact the resolution of the Schenectady Police Officers' Union's claims are certain statutes set out in the Unconsolidated Law. Unconsolidated Law §1041 addressed the removal of police officers in the competitive class and Chapter 360 of the Laws of 1911 addresses certain terms and conditions of employment affecting police officers.
* In Johnson v. Etkin,279 N.Y. 1, the Court of Appeals ruled that the OptionalCity Government Law was a special rather than a general law for home rulepurposes. Accordingly, it applies only to those cities electing to come underit.
** Another decision iswhich the Optional City Government Law was considered is Duci v Roberts, 65A.D. 2d 56.