Opinion ID: 2118776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Taylor Law and Chapter 24 of the Laws of 1969

Text: In 1967, the Legislature adopted the Public Employees' Fair Employment Act, commonly known as the Taylor Law (L 1967, ch 392, adding Civil Service Law § 200 et seq. ), a pioneering piece of legislation that significantly changed the relationship between public employees and employers in New York. Most provisions of the Taylor Law took effect on September 1, 1967, or contemporaneously with the culmination of the City's efforts to implement the Agreement through Local Law 53 and Executive Order 52. The enacted legislation was a compromise version of a bill based on recommendations in the Final Report of the Governor's Committee on Public Employee Relations (the Taylor Committee), submitted to Governor Rockefeller on March 31, 1966 ( see Lefkowitz, Osterman and Townley, Public Sector Labor and Employment Law, at 23 [2d ed]). The Democratic [A]ssembly was concerned primarily with preserving the right of New York City to institute a labor relations program for its employees, which had been developed by its own committee of experts, the tripartite panel, and so, as part of its price for passing the bill based upon the Taylor Committee report, the Assembly obtained an amendment that authorized local governments to enact local laws substantially equivalent to the state law ( id. ). This amendment was Civil Service Law § 212, which allows localities to establish substantially equivalent provisions and procedures, to be administered by a local version of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), or a mini-PERB, such as the City's Office of Collective Bargaining. Numerous provisions of the Taylor Law may not be superseded by local law, though. Section 212 (1) lists those statutes that remain directly applicable in mini-PERB jurisdictions, and section 201 (definitions) is among them. As a result, only those statutes not listed in section 212 (1) may be replaced or modified by substantially equivalent local laws. These are generally sections 206 and 207 (representation disputes), 209 (impasse resolution), and 210 (3) (strike prohibitions involving the forfeiture of a union's checkoff privileges). In addition, Civil Service Law § 205 (5) (d) confers improper practice jurisdiction upon the Board of Collective Bargaining ( see generally, Lefkowitz at 796-797). Municipal employee strikes continued to plague the City during the late 1960s, which eventually caused the Legislature to question the efficacy of the City's collective bargaining procedures. The Legislature ultimately enacted chapter 24 of the Laws of 1969, which required the City to make a report by August 1, 1969, to the leaders of the Senate and Assembly and PERB of the steps taken and a plan designed to bring [its] practices ... into substantial equivalence with [the Taylor Law], particularly focusing on making effective the jurisdiction of the office of collective bargaining, the need for a specified final step in the impasse procedures, and the relation of negotiations and impasse procedures to budget submission dates ( see L 1969, ch 24, § 11). If the City failed to submit a timely report, it would lose the benefit of Civil Service Law § 212 (2), which allowed the City's local law provisions supplanting statutes not enumerated in Civil Service Law § 212 (1) to remain effective without PERB's prior approval. This legislation also directed PERB to submit to the leaders of the Senate and Assembly by December 1, 1969, its comments and recommendations regarding the City's report and plan (L 1969, ch 24, § 11). In fact, on August 1, 1969, the City issued a document entitled Report Submitted Pursuant to Chapter 24, Laws of 1969, Designed to Bring New York City's Labor Relations Practices into Substantial Equivalence with the Public Employees' Fair Employment Act. This report's recommendations, which addressed the three topics called out by the Legislature, were generally approved by PERB.