In re Buffalo Police Benevolent Ass'n
| Decision Date | 07 June 2005 |
| Citation | 4 N.Y.3d 660,830 N.E.2d 308 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Arbitration Between BUFFALO POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, Respondent, and CITY OF BUFFALO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel, LLP, Buffalo (Matthew C. Van Vessem of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of W. James Schwan, Buffalo (W. James Schwan of counsel), for respondent.
We held in Matter of Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. (Buffalo Bd. of Educ.), 90 N.Y.2d 364, 660 N.Y.S.2d 827, 683 N.E.2d 733 [1997] [PCTEA] that a public employer could, without violating public policy, agree to forgo its statutory authority to choose any one of three candidates for promotion to clerical and secretarial positions. We now hold that the rule of PCTEA does not apply to the promotion of police officers. Public policy requires that police departments retain the authority given them by Civil Service Law § 61(1) to select one of three candidates for such promotions.
Following the administration of competitive examinations for the position of detective in the Buffalo Police Department, the Buffalo Municipal Civil Service Commission promulgated an "eligible list" of candidates who passed the examination, ranked by test scores. Officer Raymond Wrafter was first on the list, but when a position became vacant the Police Commissioner bypassed Officer Wrafter and promoted another of the top three candidates. The Buffalo Police Benevolent Association (PBA) filed a grievance, claiming that the Commissioner's action violated article XV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the PBA and the City of Buffalo, which provides:
"All conditions or provisions beneficial to employees now in effect which are not specifically provided for in this Agreement or which have not been replaced by provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect for the duration of this Agreement, unless mutually agreed otherwise between the City and the Union."
The PBA's theory was that this provision obligated the City to continue a long-standing practice by which the Commissioner appointed only the first-ranked candidate to positions in the competitive class of the civil service. An arbitrator, relying on our decision in PCTEA, agreed that the City had violated article XV and awarded Officer Wrafter compensatory damages. Supreme Court confirmed the arbitrator's award, and the Appellate Division affirmed. We now reverse.
Civil Service Law § 61(1) provides in pertinent part:
"Appointment or promotion from an eligible list to a position in the competitive class shall be made by the selection of one of the three persons certified by the appropriate civil service commission as standing highest on such eligible list who are willing to accept such appointment or promotion...."
In PCTEA we addressed the application of this statute to two arbitration awards rendered against the Buffalo Board of Education — one involving the position of associate account clerk, the other that of senior typist. The Board had passed over the highest-scoring candidate for each position, in favor of candidates lower on the eligible list. In each case, an arbitrator held that the Board's actions violated a collective bargaining agreement, relying in part on a "Maintenance of Benefits" clause similar to the clause in issue here, but also on an "explicit agreement of the parties," reflected in minutes of a series of labor-management meetings, to promote the first person on the eligible list (90 N.Y.2d at 370, 660 N.Y.S.2d 827, 683 N.E.2d 733). In each case, we reversed a decision vacating the arbitrator's award. We held that, while the Civil Service Law conferred discretion on the appointing authority to choose one of the three highest-scoring candidates, "a public employer may ... voluntarily bargain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schiferle v. Capital Fence Co.
...that an award which is violative of public policy will not be permitted to stand’ " ( Matter of Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. [City of Buffalo], 4 N.Y.3d 660, 664, 797 N.Y.S.2d 410, 830 N.E.2d 308, quoting Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 630, 415 N.Y.S.2d 974, 389 N.E.2d 456 ......
-
Consedine v. Portville Cent. School
...evidence that the school district made a conscious decision to do so (see Matter of Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. [City of Buffalo], 4 N.Y.3d 660, 663-664, 797 N.Y.S.2d 410, 830 N.E.2d 308 [2005]). Applying the foregoing, we hold that the operative contractual language is simply too equiv......
-
Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. Perb
...bargaining, its statutory right to choose among police officers seeking promotion (Matter of Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. [City of Buffalo], 4 N.Y.3d 660, 797 N.Y.S.2d 410, 830 N.E.2d 308 [2005]). And we have held that public policy bars enforcement of a provision in a collective bargain......
-
Johnson City Prof'l Firefighters Ass'n, Local 921 v. Vill. of Johnson City
...power must be voluntarily undertaken as the result of "a conscious choice" ( Matter of Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. [City of Buffalo], 4 N.Y.3d 660, 664, 797 N.Y.S.2d 410, 830 N.E.2d 308 [2005] ), and that there was no such agreement. The CBA provides for arbitration of any dispute "invo......