Poughkeepsie Prof. Firefighters' v. Perb

• Decision Date: 28 March 2006
• Citation: 847 N.E.2d 1146,6 N.Y.3d 514
• Parties: In the Matter of POUGHKEEPSIE PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 596, IAFF, AFL-CIO-CLC, et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 1146

847 N.E.2d 1146

6 N.Y.3d 514 (2006)

In the Matter of POUGHKEEPSIE PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 596, IAFF, AFL-CIO-CLC, et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 28, 2006.

Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O'Shea, Albany (Ronald G. Dunn of counsel), for appellants.

Robert A. DePaula, Albany, for New York State Public Employment Relations Board, respondent.

Stephen J. Wing, Corporation Counsel, Poughkeepsie, for City of Poughkeepsie, respondent.

Trevett, Lenweaver & Salzer, P.C., Rochester (Lawrence J. Andolina and Daniel P. DeBolt of counsel), for New York State Deputies Association, amicus curiae.

Donna M.C. Giliberto, Albany, for New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials, amicus curiae.

Hinman Straub P.C., Albany (John F. Black and David W. Novak of counsel), for New York State Professional Fire Fighters Association, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO, amicus curiae.

Coughlin & Gerhart, L.L.P., Binghamton (Mary Louise Conrow and Jeffrey Husisian of counsel), for Hartsdale Fire District and others, amici curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

READ, J.

Section 207-a of the General Municipal Law mandates payment of the full amount of regular salary or wages to a paid firefighter "who is injured in the performance of his duties" or taken ill "as a result of the performance of his duties so as to necessitate medical or other lawful remedial treatment" (General Municipal Law § 207a [1]). These payments continue until the disability ceases, or the disabled firefighter is granted a disability retirement. Payments stop if the firefighter either performs, or refuses to perform, light-duty work. The municipality is also liable for all medical treatment and hospital care necessitated by the illness or injury.

In their 1995-1998 collective bargaining agreement, the City of Poughkeepsie and the Poughkeepsie Professional Firefighters' Association agreed to negotiate a procedure to implement section 207-a for the City's firefighters. After negotiations proved fruitless, the Association concluded that impasse had been reached and petitioned the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or the Board) for compulsory interest arbitration. The City responded by filing an improper practice charge, alleging that the Association had violated Public Employees' Fair Employment Act (Civil Service Law) § 209-a (2)(b), the Taylor Law. Specifically, the Association's demands included proposals for de novo arbitral review to resolve disputes over a firefighter's initial and continuing eligibility for General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits. The City insisted that these proposals were not mandatory subjects of bargaining.

PERB agreed. The Board viewed the Association's proposals for de novo review as infringing upon the City's exclusive statutory authority to make initial eligibility and termination decisions (see Matter of City of Poughkeepsie [Poughkeepsie Professional Firefighters' Assn., Local 596, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO-CLC], 33 PERB ¶ 3029 [2000]). The Association had "misinterpreted the import" (id. at 3078) of Matter of City of Watertown (Watertown Police Benevolent Assn.) (30 PERB ¶ 3072 [1997]), where PERB decided that a demand for arbitration of disputes involving eligibility for the benefits conferred by General Municipal Law § 207-c — section 207-a's counterpart for police officers — was a mandatory subject of negotiation. In Watertown, the union "merely requested" that any dispute over the City's initial determination "be processed to arbitration pursuant to PERB's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Procedure. There was no reference in the demand, either express or implied, that there would be a de novo review of the City's initial determination" (33 PERB ¶ 3029, at 3079). Accordingly, the demand in Watertown was for "a substitute appeal procedure in order to avoid commencing an Article 78 proceeding," and was found on this basis to be a mandatory subject of negotiations (id.).

After PERB's decision in Poughkeepsie, the Association reworked its proposal and the parties resumed collective bargaining. This time around, the Association omitted "de novo" from the text of its proposed section 207-a procedures, which called for an arbitrator to review a firefighter's eligibility for benefits, the termination of benefits and assignment to light duty. The proposal also recited that the City would have "exclusive authority to initially determine the applicant's eligibility."

Again, the parties were unable to negotiate an agreement, the Association petitioned PERB for compulsory interest arbitration and the City filed an improper practice charge in response. The City claimed that the modifications made by the Association to its previous demands were "cosmetic" only, and that its proposal still called for an arbitrator to make a decision on the merits of section 207-a claims. As a result, the demands "effectively wrest[ed] from the City the authority vested in it by GML § 207-a to make the initial determination," and were non-mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.

Once again, PERB sided with the City. PERB concluded that the Association's demands sought "review not of the City's determinations of eligibility,...