Board of Ed. of Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v. Port Jefferson Station Teachers Ass'n, BROOKHAVEN-COMSEWOGUE

Decision Date10 August 1976
Docket NumberBROOKHAVEN-COMSEWOGUE
Parties, 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2967, 80 Lab.Cas. P 53,972 BOARD OF EDUCATION OFUNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, for a stay of arbitration pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules of the State of New York, v. PORT JEFFERSON STATION TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

Hull, Block & Grundfast, Smithtown, for plaintiff.

James R. Sandner, New York City, for defendant.

LEON D. LAZER, Justice.

By separate motions, the Board of Education of the Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free School District (the 'Board') has moved to stay the Port Jefferson Station Teachers Association (the 'Teachers'), from proceeding to arbitration on the issue of sabbatical leave, and to consolidate the stay motion with the Board's action for a judgment declaring invalid the collective bargaining agreement (the 'agreement') between the parties which became effective on July 1, 1975. In turn, the Teachers have moved to dismiss the declaratory judgment action on the ground that it does not state a cause of action. During the pendency of these motions, the Board has moved to supplement its original declaratory judgment complaint by adding a new cause of action to it.

Since adjudication of the merits of the declaratory judgment action is dispositive of all of the pending motions, the complaints in that action will be considered first. The gravamen of the original complaint is that the agreement is invalid because it binds the Board 'in perpetuity.' In its proposed supplemental complaint, however, the Board alleges (as an alternative cause of action) that on June 28, 1976 it exercised its right to request a new representational election and thus terminated the agreement. The first two Articles of the agreement contain all the language which bears upon the duration issue.

Article II, subd. A of the agreement provides in pertinent part that:

'A. It is contemplated that the terms and conditions of employment provided in this Agreement shall remain in effect until altered by mutual agreement in writing between the parties or through other provisions provided for in the Agreement . . .'

In subdivision 'B', however, duration appears connected to recognition by virtue of the following language:

'This Agreement shall remain in full force subject to amendment for the duration of the recognition of PJSTA as the representative of professional certified personnel in the District. No later than February 15, 1976 the parties agree to enter into good faith negotiations over Amendments to this Agreement . . .'

The recognition section of the agreement (Article I) provides as follows:

'A. The Board of Education, Union Free School District No. 3, Port Jefferson Station, New York, . . . hereby recognizes the Port Jefferson Sta. Teachers Association, Inc. as the exclusive negotiating agent for the professional certified personnel of this district. . . . This recognition shall extend until June 30, 1976 and shall be automatically renewed at that time for successive periods of two (2) years except as stated in 'B' below. The Board agrees not to negotiate with any other individual or organization for members of the negotiating unit other than the Association for the duration of this Agreement.

B. Within thirty (30) days of the end of the two (2) year period of recognition provided for in this Agreement, upon the written request of the Board or of at least thirty (30) percent of the members of the negotiating unit, the Board may hold an election to determine what organization shall represent teachers in this district. If no such request is received within thirty (30) days of the termination of this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed.'

The Board's original declaratory judgment complaint pleads that Article I and II have vested in the Teachers the sole power to terminate the agreement, thus binding the Board forever with respect to all provisions (except for the salary schedule) unless the Teachers agree to amendments through the collective bargaining process or cease being the bargaining representative. In its newly proposed additional cause of action, the Board states that acting under Article I, subd. B it has requested a representational election, thus terminating the contract. Although the Board's position concerning the availability of Article I, subd. B as a means of terminating the agreement has soundness, the June 1976 request for an election is untimely.

Article I, subd. A of the agreement provides that recognition of the Teachers extends until June 30, 1976, 'and shall be automatically renewed at that time' for successive periods of two (2) years, except as provided in subdivision B. The latter paragraph provides that 'at the end of the Two (2) year period of recognition provided for in this agreement' on written request of the Board or of at least thirty percent of the members of the negotiating unit made within thirty days the Board may hold a representational election (emphasis supplied). Since the inception date of the agreement was July 1, 1975, Article I, subd. B entitles the Teachers to a three year period of unchallenged recognition.

The three year clause is consistent with Civil Service Law § 208 which provides that a recognition agreement for a term in excess of three years shall be treated as if the period were three years. Although the section also provides that a representational challenge may be made during the last seven months of the contract, this has been construed to apply only to challenges by other labor organizations (Town of Kent Police Benev. Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of Kent, 42 A.D.2d 747, 346 N.Y.S.2d 158). Since the Board's June 1976 request for a representational election is two years premature, the second cause of action of the proposed supplemental complaint is meritless and the motion for leave to amend the complaint must be denied.

Turning then to the seminal claim that the agreement is void because it binds the Board perpetually, that body's request for an election has focused the issue on the meaning of Article II, subd. B. It is clear from the first sentence of that subdivision that the length of the contract is co-extensive with the period of recognition of the Teachers, but whether recognition (and therefore the agreement) is terminated by a request for election, or by a change of representation after election, remains obscure. The final sentence of Article I, subd. B states that 'If no such request (for an election) is recevied within thirty (30) days of the termination of this agreement, the agreement shall be automatically renewed.' This language implies that the making of such a request actually terminates the agreement, and the implication is supported by the rules of contractual construction.

Generally, in the absence of statute conferring such power, an effort to bind a municipality in its governmental capacity beyond the tenure of the board which made the contract is void (Edsall v. Wheler, 29 A.D.2d 622, 285 N.Y.S.2d 306; Abrams v. Horton, 18 App.Div. 208, 45 N.Y.S. 887), and where there is reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power it must be denied (Edsall v. Wheler, supra). However, the general rule does not apply to municipal labor agreements. Unlike the Taft-Hartley Act (see29 U.S.C.A. § 158(d)), the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law, Article 14) provides no method for terminating a contract of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Niagara Mohawk Power v. Graver Tank & Mfg.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 12 March 1979
    ...in a forfeiture since Graver has been paid for the work it has already performed. Furthermore, Board of Education v. Port Jefferson Station Teachers Association, 88 Misc.2d 27, 387 N.Y.S.2d 515 (S.Ct. Suffolk Co. 1976) is inapposite. In that case, the plaintiff sought a judgment declaring t......
  • Mariano & Associates, P.C. v. Board of County Com'rs of Sublette County, 86-206
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 14 May 1987
    ...of office. Board of Education of Pendleton County v. Gulick, supra; Board of Education of Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v. Port Jefferson Station Teachers Association, 88 Misc.2d 27, 387 N.Y.S.2d 515 (1976); Appeal of Black, 47 Wash.2d 42, 287 P.2d 96 (1955). See cases cited......
  • General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Berg and Duffy
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 17 March 1983
    ...should be adopted which will sustain the contract rather than defeat it (Board of Ed. of Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free School District v. Port Jefferson Station Teachers Assn., 88 Misc.2d 77, 387 N.Y.S.2d 515). A claim of fraud in the inducement can in some circumstances defeat a replevi......
  • Herzog v. Williams
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • 25 January 1988
    ...construction, if possible, should obviously be avoided by the courts. Board of Education of Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free School District v. Port Jefferson State Teachers Association, 88 Misc.2d 27, 387 N.Y.S.2d 515 (Suffolk Co.1976). I construe paragraph 2 of the agreement as applying t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT