Matter of Klein v City of NY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Klein v City of NY 2012 NY Slip Op 31784(U) June 29, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 102602/12 Judge: Manuel J. Mendez Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY MANUEL J. MENDEZ Justice PRESENT: PART 13 In the Matter of the Appllcatlon of TOM KLEIN, in his capaclty as BUSINESS MANAGER/ SECRETARY-TREASURERof BOILERMAKERS LOCAL LODGE NO. 6, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, Petltlonen, 102802/12 0&1 3.1 2 001 UNFILED JUDGMENT For an Order Pursuant to Article 78 ofthe civil Practice Law and Rules, - agalnst- INDEX NO. MOTION DATE MOTION 8EQ. NO. MOTION CAL. NO. This Judgment has not been entered by the Cu Clerk ow anel notice of entry cannot be sewed based hereon. To &?ah entry, counsel or authorized e must a m In person at the Jwment We), ZZEZ(- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, in hls capacity as Mayor of the Clty of New York; THE NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF LABOR RELATIONS, JAMES F. HANLEY, In his capaclty a8 COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF LABOR RELATIONS, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, EDNA WELLS HANDY, In her capaclty as COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, JAMES HEIN, as DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, Respondents. The following papers, numbered I to& were read on this petltlon tolfor ,A.78 PAPER$ NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause Answering Affldavlts - Exhlblts Replylng Affldavlts -Affldavlts - Exhlblts ... cross motlon 1-2 3-6 A Yes X No Upon a reading o the foregoing cited papers, it is ordered and adjudged that this f Cross-Motion: Artlcie 78 petition is granted, Personnel Orders No. 201211 and 201212 dated April 11, 2012 are annulled. Respondents administrative actions resulted In Personnel Orders No. 201211 and 201212 dated April 11, 2012, which approve and result in an amendment to Rule X of the Personnel Rule8 and Reguiatlons of the City of New York. The amendments to Rule X, reclassify 106 ungraded prevailing rate tltlea Into fourteen (14) new occupatlonai tlties, with four grade levels within each service classification affecting salaries and benefits. [* 2] Petitioners pursuant to Labor Law 5220, engaged in prevailing wage bargaining as ungraded civil service titles. They had entered into consent orders with the Comptroller of the City of New York, which expired prior to the amendment to Rule X. Petitioners seek judicial review of the administrative action and to annul Personnel Orders No. 201211 and 2012/2, claiming the determinations were unilateral, arbitrary and capricious, In vlolatlon of Labor Law 9220, and the reclassification provlalons of New York Civil Service Law 520. An administrative decision will withstand judicial scrutiny if It I supported by s substantial evidence, has a rational basis and Is not arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Pel1 v. Board of Education, 34 N.Y. 2d 222,356 N.Y.S. 2d 833, 313 N.E. 2d 321 [1974]). Deference is generally given to an administrative agency s decision, however, a decision that, runs counter to the clear wording of a statutory provlslon, should not be given any welght (Metropolitan Movers Ass n, Inc. v. Liu, 96 A.D. 3d 596, 944 N.Y.S. 2d 529 [N.Y.A.D. lot 20121 citing to Roberta v. Tlshman Speyer Props., L.P., 13 N.Y. 3d 270 Dept., 918 N.E. 2d 900,890 N.Y.S. 2d 388 [2009]). The leglslatlve Intent of Labor Law 5 220, is to Impose upon the state and municipal corporations the same obligation8 of paying the prevailing rate o wages to f laborers, workmen and mechanics employed in public works, In ungraded or noncompetitive employment as private employers (Gaston v. Taylor, 274 N.Y. 359,9 N.E. 2d 9 [1937]). The scope of obligation under Labor Law 5220, is for the state to hold its territorial subdivisions to a standard of social justice for dealing with laborers, workmen and mechanics (Au8tin v. City of New York, 268 N.Y. 113,179 N.E. 313 [1932]). Labor Law 5220, is to be construed, with the liberality needed to carry out its beneficent purposes... (Bucci v. Village of Port Chester, 22 NY 2d 195, supra). Salary based grading o titles Is used to establish the type and quality of work performed based on merit and f to avoid automatic promotion. Salary flxatlon Is ineffectual where there is no valid classiflcation (Corrigan v. Joseph, 304 N.Y. 172, 106 N.E. 2d 593 [1952] rearg. denied, 304 NY 759,108 N.E. 2d 618 [1952]). A reclassification of titles is lawful, ...where It conforms the civil service structure to the situation whlch actually existed in operation of the agency prior to the reclassification. .. (Joyce v. Ortlz, 108 A.D. 2d 158,487 N.Y.S. 2d 746 [N.Y.A.D. lot Dept., lS851). A civil service title may be abolished in good faith baered on economy and efficiency, but not as subterfuge for avoiding statutory protections provided to civil servants (Matter of Hartman v. Erie 1 BOCES Bd. of Educ., 204 A.D. 2d 1037,614 N.Y.S. 2d 90 [N.Y.A.D. 4thDept., 19941 and Gorman v. Von Esaen, 294 A.D. 2d 209,742 N.Y.S. 2d 235 [N.Y.A.D. lot 20021). Reciasslficatlon Is not to be used as a means of Dept., circumventing the constitutional mandates for appointment to a civil service title or validating out of title work (Matter of CSEA v. County of Duchess, 6 A.D. 3d 701,775 N.Y.S. 2d 539 [N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 20041 and Criscolo v. Vagianelis, 60 A.D. 3d 1283,8S6 N.Y.S. 2d 265 [N.Y.A.D. 3rdDept., 20081). The New York State Constitution, Article VI section 6, requires that appointments and promotions made in the Civil Service be based on merit and fltness, which to the extent it is practicable, is to be ascertained by competltlve examination. Civil Service [* 3] Law 920[2] requlres notlce, hearlng, and approvals to promote consistency and statewide adherence to the constltutlonal provisions of Artlcle V, Section 0 (Offlce of the Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 98-F3, 1998 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. 8, citing to Klipp v. New York State Clv. Sew. Commn., 42 Mlsc. 2d 35, 247 N.Y.S. 2d 632 [Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co., 19641, affd, 22 A.D. 2d 854 [N.Y.A.D. 2 dDept., 19641, affd 16 N.Y. 2d 880 [1965]). Reclasslflcation can only be accomplished in the manner set forth in Civil Servlce Law 920, whlch requlres notice, a hearlng, review and approval by the State Civil Service Commisslon. There Is no merit to the contention that the New York Clty Charter in conjunction with Civil Service Law 920[1J, exempts the procedural mandates of Clvll Service Law 520[2] (Joyce v. Ortir, 108 A.D. 2d 158, supra). Petitioners claim that Personnel Orders No. 201211 and 201212 are the result of unilateral actions taken by the respondents to classify ungraded clvll service titles which are subject to Labor Law 5220 appllcatlon of prevailing ratd wages and supplemental benefits. Petitioners have engaged in prevailing wage collective bargaining in a manner f that has been established for over 100 years, as part o the bargainlng process they entered into Consent Orders wlth the Clty Comptroller. After the most recent Consent Orders explred, the reapondenb acted by effectlvely deleting their classificatlons and reclassified the 106 ungraded prevailing rate titles affecting approxlmately 10,000 employees into fourteen (14) new Malntenance and Operation Sewlces titles. Personnel Orders No. 2012/1 and 201212 were adopted and immediately made effectlve after the Mayor s signature, altering many of the provlslons of the Consent Ordem. Petitioners claim that respondents reclassification is arbltrary and caprlclous because It massively restructures the classlflcatlon system without any effort to comply wlth either the provlslons of Labor Law 9220, or the requirementa of Clvll Service Law 520[2] regardlng notice, public hearings, and approval from the New York State Civil Service Commlsslon. Respondents oppose the petltlon clalmlng that they complied with Civil Service Law 5 20 [ l ] when they allocated titles within a salary grade construct because they did not change a Jurlsdlctlonal classification. They claim that Clvll Servlce Law 5 20 only applies when a title Is changed from competltlve to noncompetitive or exempt class. Respondents claim that the Department of Cltywlde Admlnlstratlve Servlces (DCAS) has authorlty to act as a municipal clvll sewlce commlsslon pursuant to the New York City Charter, to review salaries and titles, grade and classify them, and remove them from the scope of Labor Law 5220, subject to the Mayor 8 approval. Respondents state that the regradlng removes the prevalllng rate tltlea from the scope of Labor Law 5220. They claim that the gradinhi of competltlve class tltles was ratlonal because It Is wlthln the City s managerial prerogative, therefore notice, public hearings and New York State Civil Service Commlsslon approval are not required. DCAS conducted an investigation without consulting the Comptroller s Office, the State Civli Servlce Commlsslon, or conductlng a hearlng. DCAS determlned that the prevalllng rate appllcable to petltloners titles through negotlatlons conducted by the Comptroller s Office resulted In lnequltably high salaries, and should be replaced with competitive titles which would then be negotiated through the collective bargainlng process under the New York City Collective Bargalnlng Law (NYCCBL). DCAS conceded [* 4] that some of the positions were seasonal in nature, but determined that because they are fliied on a full time, per annum basis, the prevailing wage for seasonal work in the private sector was lower (Verified Ans., Exh. A, p. 2). DCAS based the new titles on graded salary plans for public sector employees that it determined were similar, In the Federal and New York Metropolitan Area. The DCAS memorandum dated April 3, 2012, under Subject: Proposal: states, In the Competitive Class, Rule X: ( I ) reclassify ai1 tltles under the Skilled Craftsman and Operative Service, Part [038] into one of the following new occupational services... (Verifled Ans., Exh. A), The Skilled Craftsman and Operative Service titles were on DCAS s recommendation reclassified into fourteen (14) new Maintenance and Operation Sewlces titles, with four grades In each title designated as, (I) heiperlentry level, ( 1 1) Journey-level,( 1 ) supervisor and (1V)supewislng supervlsor. Personnel Order No. 11 2012/1 lists the new titles and provides the maximurn and minimum allotted salary under each grade. Certain grades within all titles have no stated salary provisions. In the Press Operation Service Pay Plan, and Equipment Operation Service Pay Plan, only the journey level grade has a maximum and minimum salary provision, the other grades are listed as Wa. (Verlfled Ans., Exh. B). With the exception of the Electrical Service Pay Pian, no salary is listed under Supervising Supervisor. Promotions within the new titles are to the mlnlmum salary range of a graded title or $1,000.00, whichever is higher. . A review of Personnel Orders No. 201Ul and 2012/2 dated April 11,2012, demonstrates that changes made in time and leave have been substantially altered. Employees sick day accruals have been halved; terminal leave currently accumulating up to 100 days is modified to 70 days; Lincoln s Birthday was eliminated as a holiday; Election Day is only a paid holiday during those years when there is a presidential election; and payment to employees not covered under workers compensation has been eliminated along with contributions to the Welfare and Retiree Fund for unionized employees. In those instances where the maxlmum range for grades in a competitive title salaries are substantially lower, salaries will not be recovered on merit. Some examples of drastic change in salary from Consent Orders are, a Boilermaker Supervisor currently earning approximately $114,587.20 will have a range of $85,000.00 to $105,000.00; a Blacksmith Supervisor earning approximately $114,587.20 will have a range of $98,000.00- $1 14,OO.OO. The maximum range provided under the new titles and grades amount to demotions. It provides no basis for employees under those titles to compete for titles based on fltness while employed in the public sector. Across most titles the minimum salary rate applied in the grades is less than current salaries but the maximum range is higher. Petitioners have not been provided a means of determining the manner In which they will be able to acquire the maximum range for each grade. indlviduairr that have acquired licenses and seniority in a title that has been reclassifled have no means of determinlng the manner of promotion. As of the April 11, 2012, effective date, incumbent employees are permitted to maintain the status quo concerning sdlaries, time, and leave but newly hired employees In the revised titles are immediately affeated by the changes. The status quo for [* 5] incumbent employees Is subject to alteratlon when collectlve bargaining negotiations are conducted pursuant to NYCCBL procedures. Incumbent employees that have accumulated salary, tlme and leave under their Consent Orders, wlll not get to keep those accruals. They wlll be required to accept lower salaries based on the ranges in the grade for thelr job titles and bargain for increases under new collective bargalnlng contracts. Salary, time and leave accrued under Consent Ordeni have been removed and unilaterally altered by the respondents without any notice, hearlng or determination by the New York State Civil Servlce Commlssioner. The Consent Orders were valid based on hearings, lnvestlgations and negotlatlons between the Comptroller and representative unions, that evaluated prevailing wages In both the private and public sector. The revisions to and removal of salary, time and leave affectlng both new and incumbent employees without notice, hearing or a determination confirming the adherence to state-wide standards of merlt and fltness has no rational basis. Petitioners f have been placed In a position o trying to obtaln accrued salary, time and beneflts without being afforded the statutory protections of clvll servants. Respondentd reclassification does not have I rational basis and is arbitrary and capricious. Upon revlew of all the papers submltted, this Court finds that the changes proposed and implemented by the respondents resulted In not Just grading but reclasslflcatlon of Job titles subject to the provlslons of Civil Service Law 5 20. Accordingly, it Is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is granted and Personnel Orders No. 201211 and 2012/2 dated April I 2012 are annulled. I, This constitutes the declslon and judgment of this court. ENTER: MANUEL J. MENDEZ kcf Dated: June 29,2012 - J.S.C. MANUEL J.\MENDEZ, J.S. C. Check one: X FINAL DISPOSITION 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: 0 DO NOT POST REFERENCE UNFILED JUDGMENT This Judgment has not h entered by the County Clerk and ndice of entry cannot be sewed based hereon. To obtain entry, counsel o authorized representative must r appear in person at the Judgment UpMs Desk ( R m 1418).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.