Bauch v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 11 April 1968 |
| Parties | , 237 N.E.2d 211, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2994, 57 Lab.Cas. P 51,877 In the Matter of Herbert S. BAUCH, as President of Local 832, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Samuel J. Cohen and Stanley M. Berman, New York City, for appellants.
J. Lee Rankin, Corp. Counsel (Pauline K. Berger, Norman Redlich and Philip J. Ruffo, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
This appeal, taken upon constitutional grounds, poses the question--of first impression in this court--whether the City of New York may grant a dues 'check-off' privilege to a union representing a majority of the municipal employees in a city-wide bargaining unit and yet deny such privilege to a minority union. 1
In 1956, the city's Board of Estimate adopted a resolution which granted the check-off privilege to all organizations of city employees whose members authorized the necessary payroll deductions. At that time, the city did not recognize any union as an agent for collective bargaining. Later, the city began to recognize unions as exclusive bargaining agents if they were chosen by a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. Even then, however, the Board of Estimate resolution extending the check-off privilege to all unions alike was not changed and the city continued to give effect to its provisions.
In April, 1967, the city modified its union recognition policies by means of an executive order of the Mayor. The order provided (1) that appropriate bargaining units for municipal employees were to be established on a city-wide basis or, in some circumstances, on a departmental basis and (2) that the organization chosen by a majority of the employees in each such unit was to be recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative for all employees in the unit.
The Mayor proposes to round out this policy by means of a further executive order which will give the privilege of dues check-off solely to the exclusive bargaining agents and will withdraw it from all other unions. It is the declared opinion of the Mayor and the city's Director of Labor Relations that this plan for a restricted check-off policy, common in private industry, will afford the majority representatives a form of 'union security', will increase their prestige and responsibility and will, in consequence, stabilize the collective bargaining process.
Local 832 (International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America) and District Council 37 (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO) are two unions which include persons employed by the city in nonsupervisory clerical titles. District Council 37 has been recognized by the city as the exclusive bargaining representative for such employees; under the proposed plan it will thus have the exclusive benefit of the dues check-off. Local 832, on the other hand, is a minority union and, accordingly it will be deprived, under the proposed plan, of the check-off privilege it has enjoyed since 1956. 2 Strongly objecting, the latter organization, Local 832, has commenced this article 78 proceeding--through its president and several of its members on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated--to require the city to continue the check-off of dues to it, and to enjoin the city from granting exclusive check-off privileges to District Council 37 or any other labor organization. 3 The court at Special Term dismissed the petition and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the resulting order.
Under the 1963 New York City Charter (§ 8), the Mayor is authorized to 'exercise all the powers vested in the city, except as otherwise provided by law.' He is the successor to the residual powers originally possessed by the Board of Estimate under a similarly worded provision of the 1938 New York City Charter (§ 70) in effect in 1956, when that body adopted the 'non-discriminatory' check-off policy. (See, also, New York City Charter (1963), § 1142.) The city--and, thus, the Mayor on its behalf-- is empowered to enter into contracts, to regulate the terms of employment and compensation of city employees and to determine the manner of transacting the city's business and affairs (General City Law, Consol.Laws, c. 21, § 20, subds. 1, 17, 19; § 23, subd. 1). The Charter also specifically authorizes the Mayor to supervise city offices and departments, fix salaries, adopt wage plans and prescribe rules governing working conditions (New York City Charter (1963), §§ 123, 124, 813 subd. i). His executive power and discretion thus amply extend to and encompass the proposed action here under review, and no further legislative sanction is required.
Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the Mayor's discretion to decide which employee organization should have check-off privileges is not curtailed by section 93-b of the General Municipal Law, Consol.Laws c. 24. That section provides, in its subdivision 1, that a municipality is 'authorized' to deduct dues from its employees' party. 4 It is unmistakably permissive, not obligatory. It does not control a municipality's selection of the unions, if any, to which it may grant the privilege of the check-off; and it certainly does not mandate the continuance of the check-off to minority unions. The only requirements which the section imposes are that, if a municipality does adopt the check-off for any union, (1) it must obtain an employee's written consent before deducting his dues; (2) it must allow the employee to withdraw that consent at any time; and (3) the procedure must be made available only to organizations of civil service employees. These conditions are met in the Mayor's proposed order.
That this State's legislative policy is not antagonistic to the check-off plan embodied in the proposed executive order is manifest, also, from the terms of the Public Employees' Fair Employment Act (). As the court noted in the course of its opinion at Special Term, that statute--which did not take effect until some months after it announced its decision--explicitly gives majority unions of public employees the right to have their members' check-off requests honored, and is silent concerning the right to such check-off on behalf of minority unions (Civil Service Law, § 208). Although our decision in this case will have prospective effect, we need not decide whether the Taylor Act is applicable; it is sufficient to observe that, if the act does apply, it can only reinforce the decision which we reach on the basis of the preexisting law. In short, the Mayor's proposed policy is plainly consistent with the scheme set forth in the Taylor Act for according recognition, and a degree of union security, to bargaining agents for public employees; to mention but one provision, section 208 makes it mandatory upon a public employer to extend a 'right' of membership dues deduction to a union 'certified' or 'recognized' pursuant to the statute. (See, also, Civil Service Law, §§ 204, 212.) Whatever discretion a public employer may have, under the act, to grant the check-off to a minority union not recognized as a bargaining agent--and that question is not before us--the employer is plainly under no obligation to do so.
Since we find no statutory obstacle in the way of the city's proposed check-off policy, we turn to a consideration of whether that policy would, as Local 832 urges, deprive it of due process or equal protection of the laws. W...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Albright
...See Gleason v. Gleason, 26 N.Y.2d 28, 41, 308 N.Y.S.2d 347, 356, 256 N.E.2d 513, 520 (1970); Bauch v. City of New York, 21 N.Y.2d 599, 607, 289 N.Y.S.2d 951, 955, 237 N.E.2d 211, 214, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 834, 89 S.Ct. 108, 21 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968). As a result, the analysis under the federa......
-
Perry Local Educators' Ass'n v. Hohlt
...communication, such as a dues checkoff. Such challenges have uniformly been rejected. The leading case is Bauch v. City of New York, 21 N.Y.2d 599, 237 N.E.2d 211, 289 N.Y.S.2d 951, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 834, 89 S.Ct. 108, 21 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968). Many of the cases cited in the preceding par......
-
Connecticut State Federation of Teachers v. Board of Educ. Members
...an absolute right to "the special aid of the (employer's) collection and disbursing facilities." Bauch v. City of New York, 21 N.Y.2d 599, 608, 289 N.Y.S.2d 951, 956, 237 N.E.2d 211, 215, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 834, 89 S.Ct. 108, 21 L.Ed.2d 105 (1968); Local 858, supra, 314 F.Supp. at 1077;......
-
Legal Aid Society v. City of New York
...employees and to determine the manner of transacting the city's business and affairs. In re Bauch v. City of New York, 21 N.Y.2d 599, 605, 237 N.E.2d 211, 213, 289 N.Y.S.2d 951, 953-54 (1968) (Fuld, C.J.) (citations omitted); see Under 21 v. City of New York, 65 N.Y.2d 344, 357, 482 N.E.2d ......
-
Public Meeting Statutes and Public Sector Collective Bargaining
...385 (D. Del. 236 1971); see Mich. City Fed. of Teachers v. Mich. City Area Schools, 499 F.2d 115 (7th Cir. 1974); Bauch v. City of N.Y. 21 N.Y.2d 599, 289 N.Y.S.2d 951, 237 N.E.2d 211 cert. denied, 393 U.S. 834, 89 S.Ct. 108 (1968). The grant of exclusive recognition has also been approved ......
-
Card check labor certification: lessons from New York.
...representative for a unit. A legal challenge to the policy change by Teamsters, Local 237 was unsuccessful. Bauch v. City of New York, 237 N.E.2d 211 (N.Y. (130) Union Report Asked, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 3, 1957, at 63. (131) See ROBERT A. CARO, THE POWER BROKER (1974). (132) The small size of A......