Opinion ID: 2592079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Permissive Bargaining Subjects

Text: We have also recognized that certain decisions of an employer, though not without impact upon its employees, may not be deemed mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment, either because they are inherently and fundamentally policy decisions relating to the primary mission of the public employer (see , Matter of West Irondequoit Teachers Assn. v Helsby , 35 N.Y.2d 46, supra) , or because the Legislature has manifested an intention to commit these decisions to the discretion of the public employer ( see , Matter of Webster Cent. School Dist. v Public Employment Relations Bd. , 75 N.Y.2d 619 [decided today]). There is no absolute bar to collective bargaining over such decisions, but the employer may not be compelled to negotiate them. They fall into the permissive category. We reject the Board's contention that its decision to promulgate these disclosure requirements represents such a managerial prerogative as a matter of law. [3] To the extent that the Board argues that Education Law § 2590-g itself embodies a legislative choice to permit it unilaterally to impose disclosure requirements beyond those set forth in subdivision (13), we need not defer to PERB's interpretation of the statute (see , Matter of Rosen v New York State Pub. Employment Relations Bd. , 72 N.Y.2d 42, 47-48, supra) . However, upon our independent review of the statute, we see no evidence  let alone clear evidence  that the Legislature intended to withdraw the subject of disclosure requirements from the mandatory negotiating process despite their evident impact upon the employees forced to reveal voluminous information on pain of discipline and even dismissal ( contrast , Matter of City School Dist. v New York State Pub. Employment Relations Bd. , 74 N.Y.2d 395). We are similarly unpersuaded by the Board's argument that the decision to impose reporting requirements was so closely tied to the success of its educational goals that it must be categorized for Taylor Law purposes as a policy choice. PERB's conclusion that the disclosure requirements, while important to the Board's interests, represented a still greater intrusion upon the employees' terms and conditions of employment was not so plainly legally impermissible that we may set aside its expert assessment. Essentially, the Board argues that in balancing the factors that led to its conclusion, PERB gave inadequate consideration to the Board's concerns for employee integrity, elimination of corruption and the like. Although the interests at stake might be weighed differently, PERB articulated a rational basis for its decision. It was hardly irrational for PERB  while recognizing that the Board (like all public employers) had a significant interest in the integrity of its workforce  to give even greater weight to the employees' interest in being able to negotiate the requirements proposed by the Board. Nor was it irrational for PERB to determine that monitoring corruption is sufficiently attenuated from the primary educational mission or function of the school district that it may be outweighed by the other interests involved. Finally, we accord no significance to the apparent failure of the Legislature to provide any final impasse resolution mechanism in the case of school district negotiations ( compare , Civil Service Law § 209 [3] [e], with Civil Service Law § 209 [3] [f]). If the theoretical possibility of a negotiating deadlock were grounds for refusing to require negotiation of initiatives undertaken by the Board, little if any Board action would be subject to the Taylor Law's broad command, and that would plainly be absurd. Any complaint the Board has in that regard must be directed to the Legislature; it provides no basis for overturning PERB's determination. PERB's determination was neither irrational, unreasonable nor affected by any error of law. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed. Order reversed, etc.