West Irondequoit Teachers Ass'n v. Helsby

• Decision Date: 11 July 1974
• Citation: 35 N.Y.2d 46,358 N.Y.S.2d 720,315 N.E.2d 775
• Parties: , 315 N.E.2d 775, 87 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2618, 75 Lab.Cas. P 53,456 In the Matter of the WEST IRONDEQUOIT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Robert D. HELSBY et al., Constituting the Public Employment Relations Board, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 720

358 N.Y.S.2d 720

35 N.Y.2d 46, 315 N.E.2d 775, 87

L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2618,

75 Lab.Cas. P 53,456

In the Matter of the WEST IRONDEQUOIT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Robert D. HELSBY et al., Constituting the Public Employment Relations Board, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 11, 1974.

Richard R. Rowley, Jeffrey G. Plant and Bernard F. Ashe, Albany, for appellant.

Daniel R. Mooney, Rochester, for Board of Education of Central School District No. 3, Town of Irondequoit, County of Monroe, respondent.

Martin L. Barr and Jerome Thier, Albany, for Public Employment Relations Board, respondent.

GABRIELLI, Judge.

The issue here presented is whether, as argued by appellant teachers association, class size in a public school is a term or condition of employment so as to be a mandatory topic of bargaining under the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law, art. 14, Consol.Laws, c. 7); or whether, as held by a majority of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and a unanimous Appellate Division, the question of class size is one of educational policy and as such susceptible of independent action by respondent employer, the board of education.

The facts are stipulated. In May, 1970 at the beginning of negotiations between the board and teachers association for the 1970--1971 contract, the association submitted a proposal which would, Inter alia, have set class sizes in kindergarten and the first grade at 20 pupils as the number 'for whom a teacher is responsible during a single period in a single day' and for grades two through six at 25 pupils. It was further proposed that any increase beyond those minimums would have to be agreed upon by the teacher and building principal, and any disagreement would be subject to grievance procedures elsewhere set forth. The board did not agree to this, but in turn proposed in writing that the relationship between effective learning and class size and teacher load should be subject to continued examination by the parties, and that it was desirable to maintain administrative flexibility in arranging class sizes and teacher loads in order to allow for program diversity and innovation, and to allow for equitable arrangements among teachers. In this connection the board agreed to consider New York State Teachers Association guidelines in planning for the 1971--1972 school year. In this proposal the board recognized that 'Excessive class size or teacher load may affect the emotional or mental well-being of the teacher.'

The association commenced this improper practice proceeding alleging that the board failed to negotiate in good faith and had therefore violated subdivision 1 of section 209--a of the Civil Service Law. The board's answer rested mainly on the contention that negotiations are mandatory only with respect to terms and conditions of employment (§ 204, subd. 2), and that class size was not such a term or condition. There was thus presented a problem of legal dimensions. The hearing examiner ruled for the association on the ground that class size had nothing to do with the formulation of primary educational policy; that, rather, it had significant impact on teachers' working conditions.

The PERB majority recognized, as the board of education conceded, that class size bore on teacher load and that as a consequence of class size this impact on the teachers would be subject to mandatory negotiation; but it was held that the fixing of class size initially was purely the subject of educational policy made in light of the employers' resources and the needs of its constituency. The dissenting member could not make the division between the original designation of class size and the resulting impact on working conditions and stated that the causal chain was so direct as not to admit of the distinction imposed by the majority.

The Appellate Division unanimously upheld the PERB majority stating that the distinction was well taken and provided a reasonable basis for the majority's decision. We agree.

In the private sector the Supreme Court has held that the scope of mandatory bargaining is indeed wide, and that, even though the problem involves a management decision striking at basic company organization, it is subject to negotiation if industrial experience normally includes the problem and the union could realistically contribute to a solution of the problem. (Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Bd., 379 U.S. 203, 211, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233.) Four members of the court separately concurred on the ground the majority language was too broad; that decisions concerning the commitment of investment capital and the basic scope and direction of the enterprise were not negotiable terms or conditions of employment (p. 223, 85 S.Ct. 398). The various case by case interpretations given the problem of independent employer action by the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal courts (see Rabin, Fibreboard And The Termination of Bargaining Unit Work: The Search For Standards In Defining The Scope Of The Duty To Bargain, 71 Columbia L.Rev. 803; Rabin, Limitations on Employer Independent Action, 27 Vanderbilt L.Rev. 133), are, of course, not binding here (Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn. v. Helsby, 21 N.Y.2d 541, 546, 289 N.Y.S.2d 203, 236 N.E.2d 481). Nor is that line of authority especially persuasive except as it suggests that there is an area of nonnegotiable policy making left to the employer.

As a reviewing court in...