In this case, subcontracting was ruled as a mandatory subject of negotiation. In another case in New Rochelle, the employer was actually changing the amount of service to be provided and therefore subcontracting was ruled a non-mandatory subject of negotiation. If the public employer's only objective in subcontracting is to save costs while not changing the nature or amount of service, subcontracting is ruled as a mandatory subject of negotiations. Finally, if there exists evidence that subcontracting would result in a departure from past practices, then it is considered a mandatory subject. The duty to bargain can be waived by employers if there exists either explicit language in the contract giving the employer the right to bargain, or if the employees fail to request a negotiation.
Employers also have the right to act unilaterally in a time of compelling urgency.
Donovan and Orr believe that identifying a time of urgency poses interpretive problems. The Triborough Doctrine states that negotiating parties are obliged to maintain the status quo during the hiatus between the expiration of the old agreement and the negotiation of its successor. According to the authors, rarely do contracts prohibit employers for subcontracting. Rather, they usually contain language that states that subcontracting will only occur if skills, tools or capacity are needed which cannot be provided by current employees or stock of capital. The authors believe that the option of arbitration will afford unions, in some circumstances, a more effective forum for subcontracting disputes than the procedures of the Taylor Law.