Case Title: In the Matter of County of Erie and Erie County Sheriff v. State of New York Public Employee Relations Board

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2009-02-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
- 1 -
=================================================================
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 13  
In the Matter of County of Erie 
and Erie County Sheriff,
            Appellants, 
        v. 
State of New York Public 
Employment Relations Board &c., 
et al., 
            Respondents.
Sean P. Beiter, for appellants.
David Pattison Quinn, for respondent State of New York
Public Employment Relations Board.
Ellen Mitchell, for respondent Civil Service Employees
Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Erie County Unit
of Local 815.
Robert J. Reden, for respondent Teamsters Local 264 of
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Warehousemen, and
Chauffeurs and Ronald Lucas.
PIGOTT, J.:
Respondents Civil Service Employees Association, Inc.,
Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Erie County Unit of Local 815 (CSEA)
and Teamsters Local 264 of International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Warehousemen, and Chauffeurs (Teamsters) filed
- 2 -
No. 013
- 2 -
improper practice charges against petitioners County of Erie and
Erie County Sheriff for allegedly transferring exclusive
bargaining unit work to nonunit employees in violation of Civil
Service Law § 209-a (1) (d), which provides that "[i]t shall be
an improper practice for a public employer or its agents
deliberately . . . to refuse to negotiate in good faith with the
duly recognized or certified representatives of its public
employees."  
Petitioners argue on this appeal that the Appellate
Division's confirmation of the determination made by the New York
State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that petitioners
committed an improper employment practice should be reversed.  We
agree. 
I.
CSEA is the authorized collective bargaining
representative for corrections officers exclusively charged with
guarding sentenced inmates incarcerated at the Erie County
Correctional Facility.  Teamsters is the authorized collective
bargaining representative of deputy sheriffs who are exclusively
charged with guarding pre-sentenced and pre-trial detainees
(collectively referred to as "unsentenced inmates") housed at the
Erie County Holding Center and the "Annex," a space adjoining the
Correctional Facility which holds the overflow of inmates from
the Holding Center.  Petitioners do not dispute that corrections
officers and deputy sheriffs have exclusively guarded sentenced
- 3 -
No. 013
- 3 -
and unsentenced inmates, respectively, since 1995.
In August 2000, the Erie County Legislature voted to
transfer control of the Correctional Facility from the Erie
County Executive to the Erie County Sheriff, a measure county
residents approved in a referendum, leaving the Sheriff in
control of both detention facilities.  The guarding duties of
corrections officers and deputy sheriffs remained unchanged.  
In early 2002, the Sheriff notified the unions that,
due to this change in mission, it was necessary to implement a
new classification system for the housing of inmates.  The
Sheriff initially prepared a unified classification plan that
assigned housing based on risk without consideration of
adjudication status, resulting in the commingling of sentenced
and unsentenced inmates, but later withdrew that plan after
resistance from the unions.  In its place, the Sheriff
implemented separate classification systems for the Correctional
Facility and the Holding Center in order to maintain the
separation of sentenced and unsentenced inmates.  
Subsequently, the State Commission on Correction
conducted an evaluation of the Holding Center and cited the
Sheriff for overcrowding at that facility while the Correctional
Facility had vacancies.  The Commission found that the cause of
the overcrowding was the Sheriff's failure to use a unified
classification system for both facilities.  In order to alleviate
the overcrowding, the Commission directed the Sheriff to utilize
- 4 -
No. 013
- 4 -
the criteria set forth in Correction Law § 500-b (7) (a) and (b)
and 9 NYCRR part 7013.  In response, the Sheriff promulgated a
single classification instrument that resulted in the commingling
of sentenced with unsentenced inmates at both facilities, and
corrections officers and deputy sheriffs being assigned to guard
both.  
The unions thereafter filed improper practice charges
alleging that petitioners violated Civil Service Law § 209-a (1)
(d) by unilaterally transferring exclusive bargaining unit work
to nonunit employees.  The charges were consolidated and, after a
hearing, an Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the unions
and ordered that petitioners cease and desist in the assignment
of sentenced inmates to the deputy sheriffs and the assignment of
unsentenced inmates to corrections officers.  After the ALJ's
decision was affirmed by PERB, petitioners commenced this CPLR
article 78 proceeding, challenging as arbitrary and capricious
PERB's determination that their change in mission defense was
inapplicable.
 
Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Appellate
Division which confirmed PERB's determination, dismissed the
petition and granted the unions' counterclaims seeking
enforcement of the decision.  We now reverse and grant the
petition. 
II.
A public employer's decisions are not bargainable as
- 5 -
No. 013
- 5 -
terms and conditions of employment where "they are inherently and
fundamentally policy decisions relating to the primary mission of
the . . . employer" (Matter of Board of Educ. of City School
Dist. of N.Y. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 75 NY2d
660, 669 [1990] citing Matter of West Irondequoit Teachers Assn.
v Helsby, 35 NY2d 46 [1974]).  Although such policy decisions are
exempt from bargaining, the impact of those decisions is not (see
Matter of West Irondequoit Teachers Assn., 35 NY2d at 51; see
also Matter of Levitt v Board of Collective Bargaining of the
City of N.Y., Off. of Collective Bargaining, 79 NY2d 120, 127
[1992]).  
In West Irondequoit Teachers Assn. (35 NY2d 46), this
court upheld a PERB determination that found the fixing of class
size not to be a term or condition of employment (and therefore
not negotiable), but rather a matter of educational policy.  That
fact alone, however, did not preclude the teacher's association
from bargaining over the impact of the policy on the teachers'
working conditions (id. at 49-50).  Although we concluded in that
case that PERB "articulated a rational basis for its
determination in the [school board's] favor" (id. at 52), the
same cannot be said, in this instance, about PERB's determination
that the Sheriff was required to first negotiate with the unions
before implementing a classification policy satisfactory to the
Commission.  
Correction Law § 500-b directs that the Sheriff "shall
- 6 -
No. 013
- 6 -
exercise good judgment and discretion" and "take all reasonable
steps to ensure that the assignment of persons" to housing units
"fosters the safety, security and good order of the jail" while
concomitantly ensuring that necessary precautions are made for
the safety and welfare of those in custody (Correction Law § 500-
b [7] [a] [1]-[2]; see 9 NYCRR 7013.1, 7013.2).  As part of those
responsibilities, the Sheriff is charged with "implement[ing] and
maintain[ing] a formal and objective system of classification of
all inmates" (9 NYCRR 7013.1), requiring "a procedure for
determining an inmate's appropriate housing assignment which
utilizes a point scale, decision tree or other method capable of
quantifiable analysis or computation" (9 NYCRR 7013.2 [b]). 
Factors that the Sheriff must consider include, among other
things, criminal history, prior escapes, mental/medical illness,
history of hostile relationships with other inmates, and any
other information the Sheriff deems necessary to ensure inmate
safety (see Correction Law § 500-b [7] [b]; 9 NYCRR 7013.8 [c]). 
Significantly, none of those factors takes into account the
adjudication status of the inmate or the allocation of work among
collective bargaining units.  
Given the statutory requirement that the Sheriff
implement and maintain a formal and objective classification
system, we conclude that PERB's determination that petitioners
committed an improper practice by unilaterally transferring unit
work to nonunit employees is not entitled to deference (see
- 7 -
No. 013
- 7 -
Matter of Newark Val. Cent. School Dist. v Public Empl. Relations
Bd., 83 NY2d 315, 320 [1994], citing Matter of Rosen v Public
Empl. Relations Bd., 72 NY2d 42, 47-48 [1988]).  Once having
implemented such a system, the impact of that decision, if any,
upon the contracts between the parties is subject to bargaining
(see City School Dist. of New Rochelle [New Rochelle Fedn. of
Teachers], 4 PERB 3060 [1971]; see also Matter of West
Irondequoit Teachers Assn., 35 NY2d at 49-50); Matter of
Amalgamated Tr. Union [Niagara Frontier Tr. Metro Sys.], 36 PERB
¶ 3036 [2003].  
Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division
should be reversed, with costs, the petition granted, the August
9, 2006 determination of PERB annulled and the counterclaims for
enforcement of PERB's determination dismissed. 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 
Judgment reversed, with costs, petition granted, the August 9,
2006 determination of the State of New York Public Employment
Relations Board annulled and the counterclaims for enforcement of
that determination dismissed.  Opinion by Judge Pigott.  Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Jones concur.  Chief Judge
Lippman took no part.
Decided February 19, 2009