June 13, 2008
Making discipline negotiable
A court decision dealing with the disciplining of unionized cops and firefighters has prompted a legislative proposal that would have far wider implications for all public employees, including teachers.
That's the position of the New York State School Boards Association, which "strongly opposes" the bill. In support of its argument, NYSSBA cites messages handed down by former Governor Eliot Spitzer when he vetoed two previous versions of the measure in 2007 (veto messages #1 and #96). Spitzer said:
...the stated intent of this bill is to overturn the PBA v. PERB case, which dealt only with police disciplinary procedures, but the bill instead broadly defines "terms and conditions of employment" to cover both discipline and disciplinary procedures of all public employers.
Spitzer was referring to a 2006 Court of Appeals decision in Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York v. Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and a related case involving the Town of Orangetown. By a 6-0 vote, the court said police discipline is not subject to collective bargaining "when the Legislature has expressly committed disciplinary authority over a police department to local officials."
In 2006, the Legislature's bill to undo the court decision was vetoed by Governor George Pataki. Despite three vetoes, legislators are undeterred. They are hoping Governor Paterson will sign it into law. (Paterson voted for the bill in 2006 when he was in the state Senate.) The sponsors' memo of the latest bill states:
This bill would restore the Legislature's original intent to have matters pertaining to the discipline of any public employees, including police officers and firefighters, be mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment.
The bill is opposed by the New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials. It argues a police chief or elected official--not an outside arbitration panel--should be charged with disciplining cops.
Members of a police department carry a special responsibility to the public in the discharge of their work duties, something no other public employees have. Elected officials need to assure that accountability to the public remains when police officer discipline arises.
The state School Boards Association says:
This bill has the potential to drive up administrative costs, delay contract negations and hamper the effective discipline of employees.
The opposition memo refers to current "burdensome legal standards" affecting discipline of instructional employees.
However, the discipline of some non-instructional employees has been left largely to the discretion of the local district. This proposed legislation would shift that discretion away from the employers and place even more power in the hands of the employee organization.
The Senate passed the bill by a 59-0 vote in February. It is live on the Assembly floor.
Meanwhile, PERB is weighing how to interpret the 2006 court decision in a dispute involving the City of Albany, where the police chief issued a new work rule barring cops from consuming alcohol within eight hours of beginning their shifts. A PERB administrative law judge ruled against the city, which is appealing. See NY Public Payroll Watch here.
« Previous |
Main
| Next »
|
