Opinion ID: 2118776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Tripartite Agreement

Text: The City first endorsed a policy of public sector collective bargaining in the 1950s ( see Michael Fox, Criteria for Public Sector Interest Arbitration in New York City: The Triumph of `Ability to Pay' and the End of Interest Arbitration, 46 Alb L Rev 97, 105 [1981]). By 1965, however, it had become apparent that the City did not have effective conflict-resolution procedures in place. That year, employees of the Department of Welfare conducted the first successful strike by municipal workers ( id. at 106-107). The City's attempt to invoke the Condon-Wadlin Act ( see former Civil Service Law § 108 [prohibiting strikes by public employees and providing severe penalties for violations]) failed to end the work stoppage, and the City was forced to submit disputed issues to an impartial fact-finding panel (46 Alb L Rev at 107). This panel resolved the immediate controversy and, more importantly, required the Mayor to appoint a tripartite panel comprised of city officials, civil service union representatives and labor relations experts to study and recommend improvements in the City's municipal labor relations procedures ( id. at 107-108). The tripartite panel's report, issued on March 31, 1966, included a Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) negotiated by the Mayor's designees (the deputy mayor and the corporation counsel) on behalf of the City, and seven unions representing a majority of municipal workers (District Council 37, State, County and Municipal Workers' Union, AFL-CIO; Uniformed Firemen's Association, Local 94, AFL-CIO; Patrolmen's Benevolent Association; Plumbers' Union, Local 1, AFL-CIO; Building Service Employees' Union, AFL-CIO; Local 832, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; and Superior Officers' Council and Sergeants Benevolent Association of NY City Police Department). The Agreement set forth procedures which the signatories ... unanimously deem[ed] to be necessary and desirable for the effectuation of collective bargaining, and of the peaceful settlement of disputes, between the City and the organizations representing its employees. The signatories also unanimously recommend[ed] that the substance of the provisions of the enclosed [Agreement] be enacted into law by an Executive Order . . ., and, to the extent necessary, by a Local Law, both of which shall be uniformly applicable to all organizations representing City employees. Similarly, Section IX of the Agreement, entitled Effective Date, provided that [t]he foregoing provisions and procedures shall not become effective unless and until they are enacted into law by an Executive Order and a Local Law as set forth above ( see Hanslowe, Labor Relations Law, 18 Syr L Rev 247, 252 [1966] [the Agreement represent(ed) a milestone in the development of governmental labor relations through discussion and negotiation to be followed by ratification in the form of legislative and executive action  (emphasis added)]). At the time, of course, there was no statewide law granting public employees the right to form unions of their choosing, free from employer interference, and giving those unions the right to negotiate with the public employer over terms and conditions of employment. Section II, entitled Scope of Collective Bargaining, created the so-called pyramid structure or two-tiered system of bargaining whereby the City bargained on issues such as wages with the unions representing career and salary plan employees, but bargained on citywide issues such as overtime and time and leave rules and pensions with an employee organization or council or group of employee organizations representing more than 50% of all Career and Salary Plan employees. The Agreement also provided that nothing about the requirement to negotiate certain issues citywide would prevent the City from meeting with any employee organization representing employees who are affected for the purpose of hearing their views and proposals on such city-wide matters or pensions. Section II also specified that [t]he City shall continue to bargain on all matters within the scope of collective bargaining with organizations representing employees in the Police, Fire, Sanitation and Correction Services. [1]