Case Name: City of Amsterdam, Respondent, v. Robert D. Helsby et al., Constituting the Public Employment Relations Board of the State of New York, et al., Appellants; City of Buffalo, Appellant, v. New York State Employment Relations Board et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1975-06-05
Citations: 37 N.Y.2d 19
Docket Number: 
Parties: City of Amsterdam, Respondent, v Robert D. Helsby et al., Constituting the Public Employment Relations Board of the State of New York, et al., Appellants. City of Buffalo, Appellant, v New York State Employment Relations Board et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 19–42

Head Matter:
City of Amsterdam, Respondent, v Robert D. Helsby et al., Constituting the Public Employment Relations Board of the State of New York, et al., Appellants. City of Buffalo, Appellant, v New York State Employment Relations Board et al., Respondents.
Argued March 25, 1975;
decided June 5, 1975
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (John Q. Driscoll and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel),
for Robert D. Helsby and others, appellants in the first above-entitled action. I. Chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of 1974 do not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. (8200 Realty Corp. v Lindsay, 27 NY2d 124; Martin v State Liq. Auth., 43 Misc 2d 682, 15 NY2d 707; Matter of Fink v Cole, 302 NY 222; Matter of Marburg v Cole, 286 NY 208; Mount St. Mary's Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493; Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317; People v Local 365 Cemetery Workers Green Attendants Bldg. Serv. Union-Employees Int. AFL-CIO, 33 NY2d 582; Szold v Outlet Embriodery Supply Co., 274 NY 271; Chiropractic Assn. of N. Y. v Hilleboe, 12 NY2d 109; State Bd. of Pharmacy v Bellinger, 138 App Div 12, 139 App Div 920.) II. Chapters 724 and 725 do not constitute an unlawful impairment of the city’s Home Rule powers. (Adler v Deegan, 251 NY 467; Whalen v Wagner, 2 Misc 2d 89, 3 AD2d 936, 4 NY2d 575; Kelly-Sullivan, Inc. v Moss, 174 Misc 1098; City of New York v State of New York, 67 Misc 2d 513; Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade v City of N. Y., 17 AD2d 327, 12 NY2d 998; City of Utica v Mercon Inc., 71 Misc 2d 680; Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493; Matter of Long Is. Coll. Hosp. v Catherwood, 54 Misc 2d 712, 28 AD2d 1092, 23 NY2d 20.) III. Chapters 724 and 725 do not constitute a deprivation of equal protection to the citizens of Amsterdam or any other municipality. (Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; Avery v Midland County, 390 US 474; Bergerman v Lindsay, 25 NY2d 405; Shanker v Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 27 AD2d 84, 19 NY2d 951; Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493; Village of Charlotte v Keon, 207 NY 346; Matter of Atlas Tel. Co., 273 NY 51; Darlington v City of New York, 31 NY 163; Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v County of Nassau, 28 NY2d 385; Seaman v Fedourich, 16 NY2d 94.)
Dominick Toed and William Pozefsky for remaining appellant in the first above-entitled action.
I. A declaration of unconstitutionality is premature prior to enforcement of a binding arbitration award. (Park Ave. Clinical Hosp. v Kramer, 26 AD2d 613, 19 NY2d 958.) II. The court below improperly granted a final declaratory judgment. III. Chapters 724 and 725 do not violate the New York State Constitution. (Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493; Matter of Long Is. Coll. Hosp. v Catherwood, 54 Misc 2d 712, 28 AD2d 1092, 23 NY2d 20; People v Local 365 Cemetery Workers Green Attendants Bldg. Serv. Union-Employees Int. AFL-CIO, 33 NY2d 582; Lincoln Bldg. Assn. v Barr, 1 NY2d 413; I. L. F. Y. Co. v Temporary State Housing Rent Comm., 10 NY2d 263.) IV. Chapters 724 and 725 do not violate the equal protection clauses of the Constitutions of the United States and New York State. (Sailors v Board of Educ., 387 US 105; Seaman v Fedourich, 16 NY2d 94.)
Joseph Jacobs for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
I. Chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of 1974, imposing compulsory arbitration for municipalities are in contravention of the concept of Home Rule, the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Constitution of the State of New York. II. The statutes provide for an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. (Packer Coll. Inst. v University of State of N. Y., 298 NY 184; Buttfield v Stranahan, 192 US 470; Matter of Fink v Cole, 302 NY 216; Matter of Small v Moss, 279 NY 288; Darweger v Staats, 267 NY 290.) III. These chapters violate the provisions of sections 1, 2, and 3 of article IX. (Weber v City of New York, 18 Misc 2d 543; New Rochelle Trust Co. v White, 283 NY 223; County Securities v Seacord, 278 NY 34.) IV. The statutes are in violation of section 1 of article XVI of the New York State Constitution. (Matter of Fink v Cole, 302 NY 216; Society of Plastics Ind. v City of New York, 68 Misc 2d 366; Matter of United States Steel Corp. v Gerosa, 7 NY2d 454; Genet v City of Brooklyn, 99 NY 296; Gautier v Ditmar, 204 NY 20.) V. These chapters violate the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the New York State Constitution, the equal protection of the law and the one-man — one-vote principle. (Sailors v Board of Educ. 387 US 105; Hadley v Junior Coll. Dist., 397 US 50; Avery v Midland County, 390 US 474; Mount St. Mary's Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493.) VI. These chapters are a contravention of public policy. (Mount St. Mary's Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493; City of Auburn v Nash, 34 AD2d 345.)
Benjamin Werne and Alan C. Marin for the New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action.
I. The State Legislature, by the enactment of chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of 1974, unconstitutionally delegates its law-making authority to a body which is not legislative. (Matter of LaGuardia v Smith, 288 NY 1; People v Blanchard, 288 NY 145; Packer Coll. Inst. v University of State of N. Y., 298 NY 184; Darweger v Staats, 267 NY 290; Martin v State Liq. Auth., 43 Misc 2d 682; County Securities v Seacord, 278 NY 34; Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v County of Nassau, 18 NY2d 30; Avery v Midland County, 390 US 474; Board of Educ. of Tri-Val. School Dist. No. 1 v Board of Coop. Educational Servs. of Sole Supervisory Dist. of Sullivan County, 37 AD2d 330, 31 NY2d 1020, 32 NY2d 758, 414 US 992; Bergerman v Lindsay, 25 NY2d 405.) II. The State Legislature, by the enactment of chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of 1974, unconstitutionally delegates its authority, inasmuch as the Legislature did not therein provide sufficient standards and guidelines, nor did it provide for judicial review. (Packer Coll. Inst. v University of State of N. Y., 298 NY 184; Matter of Small v Moss, 279 NY 288; Matter of Commercial Pictures Corp. v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 305 NY 336; People v Klinck Packing Co., 214 NY 121; Mary Lincoln Candies v Department of Labor, 289 NY 262; Matter of Barry v O’Connell, 303 NY 46; Securities Comm. v Chenery Corp., 332 US 194; Matter of Lakeland Water Dist. v Onondaga County Water Auth., 24 NY2d 400; Boys Markets v Clerks Union, 398 US 235.) III. The State Legislature, by the enactment of chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of 1974, unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority, inasmuch as the recipient of this delegation is an ad hoc panel of private individuals. (Matter of Fink v Cole, 302 NY 216; 8200 Realty Corp. v Lindsay, 34 AD2d 79, 27 NY2d 124; Anti-Fascist Committee v McGrath, 341 US 123; Steelworkers v Warrior & Gulf Co., 363 US 574; Steelworkers v Enterprise Corp., 363 US 593; Boord v O’Brien, 277 App Div 253.)
Arthur J. Harvey for the Police Conference of New York, Inc., amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action.
The City of Amsterdam has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the enactment of chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of 1974 are unconstitutional. (People ex rel. Benedict v Board of Supervisors of Oneida County, 24 Hun 413; Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v Bangor & Aroostook Ry. Co., 255 F Supp 476, 377 US 918.)
Richard P. Walsh, Jr. for the New York State Professional Fire Fighters Association, Inc., amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action.
I. Do chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of New York for 1974 violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution? (Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533; Avery v Midland County, 390 US 474; Wells v Edwards, 409 US 1095; Sailors v Board of Educ., 387 US 105; Fortson v Morris, 385 US 231; Hadley v Junior Coll. Dist., 397 US 50; Shanker v Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 27 AD2d 84, 19 NY2d 951; Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v County of Nassau, 28 NY2d 385; Salyer Land Co. v Tulare Water Dist., 410 US 719.) II. Do chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of New York for 1974 fail to meet the constitutional tests traditionally applied to statutes delegating authority? (Darweger v Staats, 267 NY 290; Martin v State Liq. Auth., 43 Misc 2d 682, 15 NY2d 707; Chiropractic Assn. of N.Y. v Hillboe, 12 NY2d 109; Tropp v Knickerbocker Vil., 205 Misc 200, 284 App Div 935; Matter of Long Is. Coll. Hosp. v Catherwood, 54 Misc 2d 712, 28 AD2d 1092, 29 AD2d 642; People v Local 365 Cemetery Workers Green Attendents Bldg. Serv. Union-Employees Int. AFL-CIO, 33 NY2d 582; Matter of City of Utica v Water Pollution Control Bd., 5 NY2d 164; Matter of Calzadilla v Dooley, 29 AD2d 152; Matter of International Ry. Co. v Public Serv. Comm., 264 App Div 506; Woodhouse, Drake, & Carey v Anderson, 61 Misc 2d 951.) III. Do chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of New York for 1974 violate section 1 of article XVI of the New York State Constitution? (Hadley v Junior Coll. Dist., 397 US 50; Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v County of Nassau, 28 NY2d 385.) IV. Do chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of New York for 1974 constitute an improper abrogation of local governmental Home Rule powers and immunities? (MacMullen v City of Middletown, 187 NY 37; Seaman v Fedourich, 16 NY2d 94; Matter of McAneny v Board of Estimate & Apportionment of City of N. Y., 232. NY 377; Black Riv. Regulating Dist. v Adirondack League Club, 307 NY 475; City of New York v Maltbie, 274 NY 90; Farrington v Pinckney, 1 NY2d 74; Admiral Realty Co. v City of New York, 206 NY 110.) V. Do chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of New York for 1974 violate either due process or article VI (§ 7, subd [c]) of the New York State Constitution? (Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493.) VI. Chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of New York State for 1974 are presumed constitutional. (Bordens Co. v Baldwin, 293 US 194; Defiance Milk Prods. Co. v Du Mond, 309 US 537; Matter of Van Berkel v Power, 16 NY2d 37; Fenster v Leary, 20 NY2d 309; Lincoln Bldg. Assoc. v Barr, 1 NY2d 413; Matter of Ahern v South Buffalo Ry. Co., 303 NY 545, 344 US 367; People v West, 106 NY 293; Cleveland v City of Watertown, 222 NY 159.)
Leslie G. Foschio, Corporation Counsel (James J. Mc-Loughlin of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled action.
I. The power to determine terms and conditions of employment of public employees is a legislative power. (Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493.) II. The Legislature has delegated its power to legislate in violation of the Constitution. (Stanton v Board of Supervisors of County of Essex, 191 NY 428; People ex rel. Doscher v Sisson, 222 NY 387; Martin v State Liq. Auth., 43 Misc 2d 682, 15 NY2d 707; Matter of Fink v Cole, 302 NY 216; De Agostina v Parkshire Ridge Amusements, 155 Misc 518; Cline v Consumers Coop. Gas & Oil Co., 152 Misc 653; Murtha v Monaghan, 7 Misc 2d 568, 5 AD2d 695, 4 NY2d 897; Cleveland v City of Watertown, 222 NY 159; 8200 Realty Corp. v Lindsay, 27 NY2d 124; Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493.)
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (John Q. Driscoll and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for the New York State Public Employment Relations Board, respondent in the second above-entitled action.
I. Chapters 724 and 725 of the Laws of 1974 do not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. (8200 Realty Corp. v Lindsay, 27 NY2d 124; Martin v State Liq. Auth., 43 Misc 2d 682, 15 NY2d 707; Matter of Fink v Cole, 302 NY 216; Matter of Marburg v Cole, 286 NY 202; Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493; Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317; People v Local 365 Cemetery Workers Green Attendants Bldg. Serv. Union-Employees Int. AFL-CIO, 33 NY2d 582; Szold v Outlet Embroidery Supply Co., 274 NY 271; Chiropractic Assn. of N. Y. v Hilleboe, 12 NY2d 109; State Bd. of Pharmacy v Bellinger, 138 App Div 12, 139 App Div 920.) II. Chapters 724 and 725 do not constitute an unlawful impairment of the city’s Home Rule powers. (Adler v Deegan, 251 NY 467; Whalen v Wagner, 2 Misc 2d 89, 3 AD2d 936, 4 NY2d 575; Kelly-Sullivan, Inc. v Moss, 174 Misc 1098; City of New York v State of New York, 67 Misc 2d 513; Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade v City of New York, 17 AD2d 327, 12 NY2d 998; City of Utica v Mercon, Inc., 71 Misc 2d 680; Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493; Matter of Long Is. Coll. Hosp. v Catherwood, 54 Misc 2d 712, 28 AD2d 1092, 23 NY2d 20.)

Opinion:
Jasen, J.
In 1974, the Legislature amended section 209 of the Civil Service Law so as to provide that disputes arising in the course of collective bargaining negotiations between a public employer and its firemen and policemen are to be submitted to an arbitration panel, established under the jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter "PERB"), for compulsory and binding arbitration. In the first case now before us, City of Amsterdam v Helsby, the city and the collective bargaining representative for its policemen and firemen reached an impasse in their negotiations. The union then sought compulsory and binding arbitration as provided for in the amended section 209. The city, however, refused to participate and initially obtained a temporary restraining order, and thereafter a final judgment, preventing the union and PERB from proceeding to arbitration and declaring these amendments to section 209 to be unconstitutional. Similarly, in the second case, City of Buffalo v New York State Public Employment Relations Bd., the city and the unions representing its policemen and firemen also reached an impasse, and the unions petitioned PÉRB to refer these disputes to an arbitration panel. The city commenced this action in which it sought a judgment declaring section 209, as amended, to be unconstitutional. In this action, however, the trial court granted defendants a judgment declaring the amendments to be constitutional and valid in all respects and dismissed the complaint. Both cases are before us on direct appeals taken as of right.
Several grounds of alleged constitutional infirmity are alleged. The principal ground is that the amendments violate the Home Rule provisions of the State Constitution.
As relevant here, the Home Rule provisions of our Constitution provide in part as follows:
"In addition to powers granted in the statute of local governments or in any other law (ii) every local government shall have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution or any general law relating to the following subjects, whether or not they relate to the property, affairs or government of such local government, except to the extent that the legislature shall restrict the adoption of such a local law relating to other than the property, affairs or government of such local government:
"(1) The powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection and removal, terms of office, compensation, hours of work, protection, welfare and safety of its officers and employees". (NY Const, art IX, § 2, subd [c].)
This section makes it abundantly clear that the Home Rule powers will sustain an exercise of local authority with respect to the regulation of the hours of work, compensation, and so on, of employees of a local government only to the extent that such exercise is not inconsistent with any general law enacted by the Legislature. (Matter of Osborn v Cohen, 272 NY 55, 60; see Temporary State Commission on the [1967] Constitutional Convention, Report No. 13, Local Government, pp 81-82, 85, 89-91, 97.) Certainly, once an impasse is reached and arbitration is sought, an attempt by the local government to establish the hours of work, compensation, and so on, of its policemen and firemen would be entirely inconsistent with the compulsory and binding arbitration procedure established by the Legislature. In such a situation it should be apparent that the local government must yield to the dictates of the arbitration panel convened pursuant to these legislative enactments.
This discussion also necessarily involves a determination that each of these amendments to section 209 is a "general law". A "general law" in this context is defined as "[a] law which in terms and in effect applies alike to all counties, all counties other than those wholly included within a city, all cities, all towns or all villages." (NY Const, art IX, § 3, subd [d], par [1].) As the Public Employees' Fair Employment Act (Civil Service Law, § 200-214) is, by its own terms, applicable to all public employers, it is a "general law". Since neither of the challenged amendments to that law is any narrower in application, it follows that each amendment is itself a "general law".
The other points advanced by the cities do not merit extensive discussion. Both cities argue that the Legislature has unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to the arbitration panel. However, there is no constitutional prohibition against the legislative delegation of power, with reasonable safeguards and standards, to an agency or commission established to administer an enactment. (Martin v State Liq. Auth., 43 Misc 2d 682, 685 [Cooke, J.], affd upon opn rendered at Special Term 15 NY2d 707; see Chiropractic Assn. of N.Y. v Hilleboe, 12 NY2d 109, 120-121, and Matter of City of Utica v Water Pollution Control Bd., 5 NY2d 164.) Here, the Legislature has delegated to PERB, and through PERB to ad hoc arbitration panels, its constitutional authority to regulate the hours of work, compensation, and so on, for policemen and firemen in the limited situation where an impasse occurs. It has also established specific standards which must be followed by such a panel. (Civil Service Law, § 209, subd 4, par [c], cl [v].) We conclude that the delegation here is both proper and reasonable.
The City of Amsterdam additionally argues that the Legislature has unconstitutionally granted the arbitration panel the power of taxation and that the amendments violate the one-man — one-vote principle and, therefore, deny the citizens of Amsterdam equal protection of the law. We have reviewed these arguments and have found them likewise to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment in City of Buffalo v New York State Public Employment Relations Bd. should be affirmed. Since City of Amsterdam v Helsby involves a procedural issue as well as the constitutional issue, a direct appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals does not lie. (CPLR 5601, subd [b], par 2.) That appeal should be transferred to the Appellate Division, Third Department. (NY Const, art VI, § 5, subd b.)