City of Amsterdam v. Helsby
| Citation | 79 Misc.2d 676,362 N.Y.S.2d 698 |
| Parties | , 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3208, 76 Lab.Cas. P 53,645 CITY OF AMSTERDAM, New York, Plaintiff, v. Robert D. HELSBY et al., Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1974 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany, for Public Employment Relations Bd.; John Q. Driscoll, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.
Dominick Tocci, Pozefsky, Tocci & Pozefsky, Albany, for Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Lombardi & Reinhard, P.C., Schenectady, for New York State Professional Fire Fighters Ass'n, Inc.
Harvey & Harvey, Albany, for Police Conference of New York, Inc.
In this proceeding the plaintiff, City of Amsterdam, seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from the enforcement of Chapters 724 and 725, Laws of New York, 1974, which would compel plaintiff as a public employer to engage in final and binding compulsory arbitration with its employees in the police and fire departments. Underlying this application for a preliminary injunction is an action for declaratory judgment instituted by plaintiff against defendants to declare the provisions of Chapters 724 and 725 unconstitutional, null and void.
Specifically, City of Amsterdam, 'prays for an order declaring Chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of 1974 unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing same on the grounds that: (1) Said laws are a violation of the concept of home rule and of the Municipal Home Rule Law in that it vitiates, erodes and violates and diminishes Home Rule. (2) Said laws are a violation of the New York State Constitution, especially Article IX, section 2(b)(1) which provides for enactment of such statutes in two (2) successive years. (3) Said laws are a violation of the New York State Constitution and especially Article IX, section 3, in that the Legislature has by these statutes impaired and restricted the affairs of local government contrary thereto. (4) Said laws are a violation of the New York State Constitution and especially Article XVI, section 1, in that the statutes result in a surrendering of the right of taxation by permitting arbitrators to tax local governments by their determinations. (5) Said laws are a violation of the New York State Constitution and especially Article III, section 17. By this Prior to July 1, 1974, the City of Amsterdam, and the police and fire personnel represented by Local 294 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America were engaged in 'collective negotiations' pursuant to the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law, art. 14), had gone to fact finding and were at impasse subsequent to July 1, 1974. Local No. 294 petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board on September 5, 1974 to refer the impasse to an arbitration panel pursuant to the above mentioned statutes, naming as their arbitrators one of their negotiators, the business agent of Local No. 294. The Public Employment Relations Board, hereinafter 'PERB', thereafter advised the City of Amsterdam that since it had not designated an arbitrator they would designate one for the city and did so naming the Mayor of Amsterdam as arbitrator. At this point, the City obtained an order to show cause and a stay order enjoining and restraining defendants from proceeding under Chapters 724 and 725 pending the determination of the preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiff served all papers, including a complaint, on September 30th.
statute they are granting to certain classes the right to compulsory arbitration without granting the same [79 Misc.2d 678] right to everyone and they are further singling out a group, the taxpayers, whose rights are being prejudiced by their actions. (6) These statutes contravene public policy by jeopardizing a system of government of the people and substituting a policy of government by arbitration which further jeopardizes the integrity of the Constitution.'
This court heard oral arguments of plaintiff and defendants on October 15, 1974 at Special Term held in the County of Montgomery, Village of Fonda, State of New York. On the same day, the court granted the Police Conference of New York, Inc. permission to file an amicus curiae brief and thereafter heard an oral argument by the latter's representative. Police Conference of New York, Inc. was not, however, granted the status of intervenor-defendant. Subsequent to oral argument, similar permission to file an amicus curiae brief has been granted to the New York State Professional Fire Fighters Association, Inc.
Plaintiff alleges:
'Paragraph 13. That the plaintiff city of Amsterdam, whose fiscal year is from January 1 through December 31, by such statutes imposing compulsory arbitration, will be compelled to make expenditures of money which have not been budgeted and could not be borrowed and would compel the municipal corporation to engage in unlawful borrowing to make the payments ordered by a third party stranger, if the statutes were complied with.
'Paragraph 15. In the event that the city of Amsterdam is compelled to engage in compulsory arbitration and unless restrained or prohibited, it will cause the plaintiff and the people of the city of Amsterdam irreparable and immediate damage in that city would be compelled to borrow money other than in ways provided by law In the 'Fact Finder's Report and Recommendations' case No. M--74--109, Lewis R. Salkever, Factfinder, page 2, the following are noteworthy:
and would thus disrupt its financial structure and impair its general financial ability to obtain loans and borrow money and affect its credit rating. Such will also result in financial damage to the people of the city of Amsterdam and will disrupt, disorganize and cripple the operation and structure of the city of Amsterdam to its detriment and its welfare, safety, and the convenience of the people of the city of Amsterdam for all of which the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.'
'II. ISSUES, B. Wages
Union wants a 30% Increase . . . City, while it was not prepared to present an alternative 'percentage' wage increase . . . cited the patterns of increase already negotiated for other city employees and referred to its inability to borrow legally prior to January 1, 1975 in the form of 'tax anticipation notes' the sums needed to meet a 30% Increase to say nothing of the cost of other changes sought by the Union.' . . .
(Fact Finders Report and Recommendations, p. 8).
Defendants argue that: plaintiff has not shown any irreparable harm as a basis for the preliminary injunction, plaintiff has not overcome the presumption of constitutionality attaching to Chapters 724 and 725 and has not met the burden of proof, which is to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the statutes in question beyond a reasonable doubt. Matter of Van Berkel v. Power, 16 N.Y.2d 37, 261 N.Y.S.2d 876, 209 N.E.2d 539. More particularly, the Attorney General points out in his brief:
The attorney for defendant, Local 294, alleges:
'Upon information and belief, the city has provided in its 1974 budget for appropriations to cover some increases in wages and benefits for policemen and firemen which, to date, have not been expended for that purpose.'
In reply, plaintiff's attorney states:
'An argument was made that the city has set aside a considerable sum of money in anticipation of salary increases in the police and The most significant change Chapters 724 and 725 (L.1974, § 3) make from prior law is: the determination of the public arbitration panel 'shall not be subject to the approval of any local legislative body or other municipal authority'. A political decision, namely what type and the terms of a collective bargaining agreement contract the City of Amsterdam will make and bind itself to, has been thus removed from the jurisdiction of elected public officers (the council-manic body and elected executive officers) and placed within the jurisdiction of a three-person, appointive 'public arbitration panel'.
fire departments. This is untrue. The city is called upon to negotiate with four districts and separate unions. In its budget for 1974, it had set aside some $60,000.00 for salary increases. Due to circumstances, this money has been expended for the average 10% Increases granted to most other units. The city offered a similar 10% Increase to police and firemen which was rejected. There is no money being held in escrow or otherwise in anticipation of increases herein.'
While the panel's determination 'shall be final and binding', this court interprets Mt. St. Mary's Hospital v. Catherwood, 26 N.Y.2d 493, 311 N.Y.S.2d 863, 260 N.E.2d 508 (1970) to allow judicial review under CPLR 7511 on 'whether award (or here determination) is supported by evidence or other basis in reason, as may be appropriate, and appearing in the record'. Mt. St. Mary's, supra, headnote no. 6, at p. 494, 311 N.Y.S.2d at p. 864, 260 N.E.2d at p. 509. But the same case also contains the following statement: 'Given a reasonable basis for the award the court's power to review, however, under any theory or by any procedure, ceases'. Mt. St. Mary's, supra, p. 510, 311 N.Y.S.2d p. 876, 260 N.E.2d p. 517.
In the same case, Judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Ed. of Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., Towns of Huntington and Babylon v. Roseman
...Misc.2d 741, 363 N.Y.S.2d 896, and City of Corning v. Corning Police Dept., 81 Misc.2d 294, 366 N.Y.S.2d 241 (cf. City of Amsterdam v. Helsby, 79 Misc.2d 676, 362 N.Y.S.2d 698). Special Term also rejected appellants' contention that the September 2 temporary restraining order was null and v......