Scime v. County Legislature of Erie County
| Decision Date | 20 June 1977 |
| Citation | 395 N.Y.S.2d 952,90 Misc.2d 764 |
| Parties | , 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2191 In the Matter of Joseph A. SCIME, George F. Engler and Frank J. Boccio, Petitioners, for Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. The COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF ERIE COUNTY, Edward V. Regan, Erie County Executive, and John V. Clark, Erie County Personnel, Commissioner, Respondents. In the Matter of Mario J. ROSSETTI, Petitioner, for Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. The COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF ERIE COUNTY, Edward V. Regan, Erie County Executive, and John V. Clark, Erie County Personnel Commissioner, Respondents. In the Matter of Christine JANKOWSKI, Dorothy Mrgrich, Peggy Rawleigh, Spiro Konst and Charles Orlando, Petitioners, v. The COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF ERIE COUNTY, Edward V. Regan, Erie County Executive, and John V. Clark, Erie County Personnel Commissioner, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The above entitled proceedings were brought pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to contest the respondents' withholding of salary increases allegedly due these petitioners for the years 1976 and/or 1977. All of the petitioners are non union, Erie County "white collar" employees of exempt civil service classification (Civil Service Law, § 41). They hold various graded, non judicial positions within the county's court structure. By these actions they seek to compel the county's payment of 8% or $800.00 salary increases as originally proposed by a July 29, 1975 resolution of the respondent legislature. That resolution was adopted in connection with the legislature's earlier approval of a new collective bargaining agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association, the recognized bargaining unit for the county's white collar employees. Unlike the majority of such employees whose right to unionize and collectively bargain is guaranteed by statute (Civil Service Law, § 202), these petitioners are said to be prohibited from doing so by reason of their "managerial" or "confidential" employment classification (id., §§ 201, subd. 7(a); 214). In fairness to such employees, therefore, and in keeping with the county's established tradition, the legislature adopted resolution number 437 to the effect that all non union employees would be granted 1976 and 1977 salary increases and other employment benefits equivalent to those afforded union employees under the new collective bargaining agreement.
The proposed 1976 salary adjustments were thereafter funded by that year's budget and, except for some higher salaried employees, salary increases were given to most county employees in accordance with the July 29, 1975 resolutions. The principal exceptions were some employees whose 1975 salaries exceeded $20,000.00, the respondents having subsequently determined to freeze all salaries in those pay grades in an effort to ease the county's financial strain. In spite of that determination, however, 1976 salary increases were in fact received by many such employees, but not by petitioners Scime, Engler, and Boccio. It should be noted that the withholding of their respective salary adjustments represented nothing more than an admittedly inconsistent economizing and was not intended to reflect any doubt as to their unquestioned merit and abilities.
Thereafter and throughout 1976 the county continued to experience serious financial difficulties. The need for substantial tax increases and meaningful reductions in 1977 appropriations became obvious (cf. Mtr. of Gallagher v. Regan, 55 A.D.2d 284, 390 N.Y.S.2d 703). Respondents therefore determined to withhold 1977 salary increases from all non union personnel and a resolution to that effect was adopted by the legislature and made part of the county's 1977 budget on November 30, 1976. That determination notwithstanding, 1977 salary increases were afforded a substantial number of non union employees, but not the petitioners herein. No attempt has been made to correct this inequity, or to recover any funds allegedly expended in contravention of the November 30, 1976 resolution and the current county budget. The withholding of increases from these petitioners and others was again without reference to their merit or ability and was founded solely upon their status as non union employees.
Petitioners contend that the withholding of their salary increases was discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious and violated their right to the equal protection of the law (U.S.Const., 14th Amdt.; N.Y.Const., art. I, § 11). The respondents claim that petitioners are without any contractual or constitutional right to the relief requested and that the withholding of these salary increases was a proper exercise of the legislature's right to determine the compensation of county employees (County Law, § 205; Erie County Charter, § 202(f)). The respondents also suggest that to the extent raises may have been mistakenly granted some non union employees, those increases were appropriated and paid by reason of administrative error and did not represent an intentional, unlawful discrimination between similarly situated employees.
The county's financial plight cannot be denied. As in the case of every household, spiraling costs and ever increasing demands on available income have made fiscal restraint and efficient management an absolute necessity. In answer to that need the respondents have heretofore made every effort to reduce county appropriations to a fiscally responsible level (see Mtr. of Gallagher v. Regan, supra). It is their continuing responsibility to eliminate unnecessary expenditures, maintain a balanced budget and otherwise accomplish fiscal stability. But they must do so in a lawful manner.
There is no doubt that under proper circumstances, a local government may lawfully withhold, suspend, or defer wage increases, or abolish positions, or temporarily furlough or suspend employees, or otherwise act in a non discriminatory manner to reduce expenditures in a time of fiscal crisis (Koenig v. Moran, 56 A.D.2d 254, 392 N.Y.S.2d 119; Committee of Interns and Residents v. City of New York, 87 Misc.2d 504, 386 N.Y.S.2d 177). It is similarly true, as the respondents contend, that the July 29, 1975 resolution number 437 created no contractual or otherwise vested rights in the county's non union employees. Subject to applicable statutory and constitutional considerations, the legislature was fully authorized to reconsider, modify, amend or revoke that resolution at any time (Mtr. of Baczensky v. Hose, 44 Misc.2d 89, 253 N.Y.S.2d 32). The issue to be decided herein is whether the respondents' denial of salary increases for these petitioners falls within those rules.
Erie County has heretofore duly adopted a graded salary plan based upon county job descriptions and specifications (County Law, § 205; Civil Service Law, § 20). Such plans exist throughout the civil service of this state and elsewhere and are designed to benefit both the public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York City Managerial Employees Ass'n v. Dinkins
...which involved a classification between union and non-union employees is also inapposite. See Scime v. County Legislature of Erie County, 90 Misc.2d 764, 395 N.Y.S.2d 952 (Sup.Ct.1977). The limited groups of union and non-union employees at issue in Scime, like the employees in the other ca......
-
MTA Bus Non-Union Emps. Rank & File Comm. v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
...who bring their equal protection claim under both state and federal law, rely nearly exclusively on Scime v. County Legislature of Erie County, 90 Misc.2d 764, 395 N.Y.S.2d 952 (Sup.Ct. Erie Co.1977), and Weissman v. Bellacosa (“Weissman I”), 129 A.D.2d 189, 517 N.Y.S.2d 734 (2d Dept.1987).......
-
Flaherty v. Giambra
...The Plaintiffs argue that the circumstances of this case are nearly identical to those in Matter of Scime v. County Legislature of Erie County, 90 Misc.2d 764, 395 N.Y.S.2d 952 (1977), in which an equal protection violation was found. The Defendants, on the other hand, argue that this case ......
-
Weese v. Davis County Com'n
...see also Foley v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 421 N.E.2d 1160, 1163-64 (Ind.Ct.App.1981); Scime v. County Legislature of Erie County, 90 Misc.2d 764, 395 N.Y.S.2d 952, 955 (1977).17 A party claiming promissory estoppel must establish the following: (1) a promise reasonably expected t......