Buffalo United Charter Sch. v. N.Y.S. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 24 April 2012 |
| Citation | 943 N.Y.S.2d 868 |
| Parties | BUFFALO UNITED CHARTER SCHOOL, Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, and National Heritage Academies, Inc., Petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, Local 1, AFSA, and Buffalo United Charter School Education Association, NYSUT/AFT, AFL–CIO, New York, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Laurence B. Oppenheimer, Scott M. Pechaitis, Esq., Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, for Petitioners Buffalo United Charter School, Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School and National Heritage Academies, Inc.
John J. Henry, Esq., Kevin P. Quinn, Esq., Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, for Petitioner National Heritage Academies, Inc.
David P. Quinn, Esq., Employment Relations Board, for Respondent New York State Public.
Bruce K. Bryant, Esq. Attorney for Respondent Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, Local 1, AFSA.
Richard E. Casagrande, Esq., Robert T. Reilly, Esq., for Respondent Buffalo United Charter School Education Association, NYSUT/AFT, AFL–CIO, New York.
Petitioners commenced this Article 78 proceeding to review and annul the February 14, 2011 Decision and Order (the "Decision") of the New York Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB") relating to PERB Case Nos. C–5672, E–2429, and C–5878 (the "Cases"). Petitioners assert that the Decision was affected by substantial errors of law, was arbitrary and capricious, and was an abuse of discretion. Petitioners also seek a declaration under CPLR § 3001 that the Decision is a substantial impairment of contractual rights entered into between petitioners in violation of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10.
Petitioners Buffalo United Charter School ("BUCS") and Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School ("BECS") are two independent 501(C)(3) non-profit education corporations, located in Buffalo and Brooklyn, respectively, that were formed under Education Law Article 56 (). Petitioner National Heritage Academies, Inc.("NHA") is a private, for-profit corporation that entered into "Management Agreements" for the operation of the schools formed by BUCS and BECS. Under the Management Agreements, NHA is responsible for employing the staff at BUCS and BECS.
BUCS and BECS were both formed in 2002 and provide education to students in the kindergarten through eighth grade. BUCS is in its ninth year of operation whereas BECS is in its tenth year of operation. Both BUCS and BECS were formed upon the petition of community leaders. Once the charters were issued by the State University of New York Board of Trustees ("SUNY"), the community leaders became the board of trustees for each of the two schools. As provided for in the application to SUNY, both BUCS and BECS contracted with NHA whereby NHA would manage the schools. The record is replete with references to NHA's management functions performed in operating the schools.
PERB is an independent state agency created pursuant to the Public Employee's Fair Employment Act ( Civil Service Law § 200 et seq. ) (the "Taylor Law" or the "Act"). Respondent Council of School of Supervisors and Administrators, Local 1, AFSA ("CSA") is a New York City based labor organization representing principals, assistant principals, supervisors and education administrators who work in the New York City Public Schools. CSA is seeking to be certified as the collective bargaining representative for a unit of unrepresented assistant principals at BECS. Respondent Buffalo United Charter School Education Association, NYSUT/AFT, AFL–CIO ("Association") is a union with offices in Buffalo, New York, that is seeking to be certified as a collective bargaining representative of a unit of unrepresented instruction employees at BUCS.
In December of 2006, CSA filed with PERB a petition seeking to be certified as the collective bargaining representative of all assistant principals working for BECS. In January of 2007, BECS and NHA filed with PERB an application for the designation of the assistant principals at issue as "managerial" or "confidential" as those terms are defined in Civil Service Law § 201(7)(a). BECS and NHA reserved their objections to PERB's jurisdiction with respect to their application.
In March of 2009, the Association filed with PERB a petition to be certified as the collective bargaining representative of a unit of unrepresented instructional employees at BUCS. NHA and BUCS responded to this application for certification while reserving their objection to PERB's jurisdiction.
In June of 2009, a PERB Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined that PERB had jurisdiction over the petitions involving BECS. The ALJ in the BECS matter also determined that the assistant principals at issue were "confidential" employees under the Taylor Law, although they were not "managerial" employees.
In February of 2010, a different PERB ALJ held that PERB did not have jurisdiction over the BUCS matter because the employees were jointly employed by NHA and BUCS.
The parties pursued joint proceedings before PERB with respect to the above-described issues. On February 14, 2011, PERB issued its Decision determining that it had jurisdiction over BUCS and BECS. PERB also rejected petitioners' arguments that the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") has preemptive jurisdiction over NHA, BUCS and BECS pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). It further determined that the assistant principals at issue were neither managerial nor confidential. It is these determinations which are contested in this proceeding.
Petitioners argue that PERB is prevented by its own joint public-private employment doctrine from asserting jurisdiction over the cases and employees at issue. According to petitioners, PERB erroneously concluded that the Charter Schools Act precludes the application of that doctrine. Petitioners point to the absence of any exception or limitation in the Charter Schools Act pertaining to the joint public-private employment doctrine. They also assert that, because the Legislature is presumed to have been aware of the joint public-private employment doctrine at the time it adopted the Charter Schools Act, the absence of any direct statement in the law regarding the doctrine is sufficient evidence of an intent to allow the doctrine to be applied with respect to charter schools.
Petitioners further claim that PERB lacks jurisdiction because it is preempted by the NLRA. Because NHA is an employer pursuant to its Management Agreements with the subject schools, and because NHA is a private entity, petitioners argue that PERB must yield to NLRB's jurisdiction. Petitioners also urge the Court to reject PERB's conclusion that charter schools are a "political subdivision of the state" under the NLRA and therefore exempt from NLRB jurisdiction.
Petitioners also assert that PERB erroneously found that the Charter Schools Act prevents the designation of the assistant principals at issue as "managerial" or "confidential." The assistant principals, according to petitioners, are members of the executive team at the subject charter schools and therefore PERB wrongly denied their "managerial" or "confidential" status.
Lastly, petitioners rely upon the Contract Clause in the United States Constitution (Art. I, § 10) to claim that PERB's decision impairs the obligations under the Management Agreements between NHA and the charter schools to such a substantial extent as to be constitutionally unenforceable. Petitioners argue that, by declaring the charter schools to be the sole employers of their employees, PERB has negated NHA's role entirely with respect to the operation and management of the schools.
Respondents contend that PERB properly concluded that the Charter Schools Act "explicitly and implicitly makes the act (the Taylor Law) applicable to every New York charter school" (PERB Dec., p. 27) and that PERB's "joint public-private employer relationship precedent ... has been superceded" by the Charter Schools Act (PERB Dec., p. 29). According to respondents, PERB's joint public-private employment doctrine is inconsistent with the Charter Schools Act and therefore explicitly superceded by Education Law § 2854(1)(a). Moreover, respondents maintain that Education Law § 2854(3)(a) mandates that charter schools are public schools for purposes of the Act and that, because the Legislature made no provision for an exception to this mandate, there is no authority permitting application of the joint public-private employment doctrine.
Respondents further argue that the Legislature did not intend that any charter school be governed by the NLRA. According to respondents, carving out charter schools, such as petitioners, which have established a partnership with a private entity, such as NHA, from PERB's jurisdiction would lead to unintended and unreasonable consequences such as affording certain charter school employees the right to strike but not others.
Respondents also assert that PERB's conclusion that the Charter Schools Act does not authorize the designation of "managerial" and "confidential" employees is a proper legal conclusion. Respondents further urge the Court to apply a deferential standard of review to PERB's conclusion in this regard.
Finally, respondents contend that there is no unconstitutional impairment of the Management Agreements between NHA and its charter schools because, even with PERB exercising jurisdiction over the charter school employees, NHA's role under the agreements is not materially diminished. Accordingly, respondents assert that the alleged impairment is constitutionally insignificant, if there is any impairment at all.
The Charter Schools Act was adopted in December of 1998 and became effective immediately. Its purpose was to "authorize a system of charter schools" that would ...
To continue reading
Request your trial