| Matter of Meegan v Brown |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04805 [63 AD3d 1673] |
| June 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Robert P. Meegan, Jr., Individually and asPresident of Buffalo Police Benevolent Association, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Byron W.Brown, Mayor of City of Buffalo, et al., Appellants-Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Joseph E. Foley, Individually and as President of Buffalo Professional FirefightersAssociation, Inc., Local 282, IAFF, AFL-CIO-CLC, et al., Respondents, v Byron W.Brown, Mayor of City of Buffalo, et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 2.) Buffalo Teachers Federation, Inc., NYSUT, et al., Respondents, v Buffalo Board of Educationfor City School District of City of Buffalo et al., Appellants. (Action No.1.) |
—[*1] Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford (A. Vincent Buzard of counsel), forrespondent-appellant-respondent, respondent-appellant and defendant-appellant Buffalo FiscalStability Authority. Damon & Morey LLP, Buffalo (Michael J. Willett of counsel), for defendant-appellantBuffalo Board of Education for City School District of City of Buffalo. W. James Schwan, Buffalo, for petitioners-respondents-appellants. Creighton, Pearce, Johnsen & Giroux, Buffalo (E. Joseph Giroux, Jr., of counsel), forpetitioners-respondents. James R. Sandner, Latham (Andrew D. Roth, of the Washington, D.C. bar, admitted pro hacvice, of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.
Appeals and cross appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, ErieCounty (John A. Michalek, J.), entered November 14, 2007 in CPLR article 78 proceedings anda declaratory judgment action. The judgment, among other things, granted the amended petitionsin proceeding Nos. 1 and 2 and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in action No. 1.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed withoutcosts.
Memorandum: In light of a State Comptroller's report concerning a fiscal crisis in the City ofBuffalo (City), a respondent in proceeding Nos. 1 and 2, the Legislature passed the BuffaloFiscal Stability Authority Act (Act) on July 3, 2003 to address that fiscal crisis (seePublic Authorities Law § 3850 et seq.). The Act created the Buffalo FiscalStability Authority (BFSA), a public benefit corporation that is a respondent in proceeding Nos.1 and 2, to assist in achieving fiscal stability in the City by the 2006-2007 fiscal year (see§ 3857 [1]). In particular, the BFSA was empowered to impose a wage freeze upon itsfinding that such freeze was essential to the adoption or maintenance of a City budget orfinancial plan (see § 3858 [2] [c] [i]).
On April 21, 2004, the BFSA invoked its power to impose a wage freeze and determined"that a wage freeze, with respect to the City and all covered Organizations, is essential to themaintenance of the Revised Financial Plan and to the adoption and maintenance of futurebudgets and financial plans that are in compliance with the Act." The BFSA further resolvedthat, effective April 21, 2004, "this shall be a freeze with respect to all wages . . .for all employees of the City [that] shall apply to prevent and prohibit any increase in wagerates." On June 1, 2007, the BFSA resolved to lift the wage freeze, effective July 1, 2007.
All of the collective bargaining agreements between the City and the petitioners inproceeding Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs in action No. 1 contain plans or schedules for careeradvancement or promotion that are referred to herein as steps. As an employee acquires servicecredit or years of employment, he or she advances in steps and receives a concomitant increasein salary. The general purpose of the "steps" is to recognize increased experience, proficiencyand [*2]mastery of particular sets of job skills or requirements.Additionally, the collective bargaining agreements contain across-the-board percentage wageincreases that apply to all of the "steps" within the bargaining unit.
Upon the lifting of the wage freeze, the BFSA and the City indicated that City employeeswould be entitled only to a one "step" increase in salary and wages, in effect "resuming" theadvancement up the steps that had been frozen in 2004. The unions, however, contended that,although the employees could not be paid the increased wages to which they would have beenentitled during the wage freeze period, they nevertheless were entitled upon the lifting of thewage freeze to be moved ahead four salary "steps." In rejecting that contention, the BFSA andthe City asserted that such an increase in salary "steps" would have an untenable financialimpact.
The respondents in proceeding Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendants in action No. 1 appeal from ajudgment denying the motions of the respondents to dismiss the amended petitions and suasponte granting the relief requested therein, as well as granting the motion of the plaintiffs inaction No. 1 for summary judgment on the amended complaint and denying the cross motions ofthe defendants in action No. 1 for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Thepetitioners in proceeding No. 1 also cross-appeal from the same judgment insofar as the court"failed to determine that the [BFSA] lifted or should have lifted the wage freeze no later thanJanuary 31, 2007." Supreme Court concluded that "[p]etitioners [and plaintiffs] are entitled totheir previously negotiated wage increase benefits going forward immediately . . .[inasmuch as t]o interpret [Public Authorities Law § ] 3858 (2) (c) (iii) in the manneradvanced by [r]espondents [and defendants] would result in a cancellation of the wage increaseswhich is not authorized or permitted by the statute." We affirm.
The parties agree that the resolution of these appeals and this cross appeal involves an issueof law that is dependent upon statutory construction. Our analysis thus must begin with theexpress language of Public Authorities Law § 3858 (2), which provides in pertinent part:"In carrying out the purposes of this title during any control period, the [BFSA]:. . . (c) may impose a wage and/or hiring freeze: (i) During a control period, upon afinding by the [BFSA] that a wage and/or hiring freeze is essential to the adoption ormaintenance of a city budget or a financial plan that is in compliance with this title, the [BFSA]shall be empowered to order that all increases in salary or wages of employees of the city andemployees of covered organizations . . . are suspended. Such order may alsoprovide that all increased payments for . . . salary adjustments according to planand step-ups or increments for employees of the city and employees of covered organizations. . . are, in the same manner, suspended . . . (iii) Notwithstanding theprovisions of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, no retroactive pay adjustments of anykind shall accrue or be deemed to accrue during the period of wage freeze, and no suchadditional amounts shall be paid at the time a wage freeze is lifted, or at any time thereafter."
Public Authorities Law § 3858 (2) (d) provides that the BFSA: "shall periodicallyevaluate the suspension of salary or wage increases or suspensions of other increased paymentsor benefits, and may, if it finds that the fiscal crisis, in the sole judgment of the [BFSA] hasabated, terminate such suspensions."
We conclude that, pursuant to the plain meaning of the express language of PublicAuthorities Law § 3858, the contractual provision concerning the employees' ongoingadvancement on the salary schedules as a result of continued accrual of service credit was notcancelled, annulled or eliminated.[*3]
Rather, the City's obligation to make payment ofthe type of wage increases in question was suspended until the wage freeze was terminated. TheCity cannot ignore the fact that the employees have continued to accrue service credit and haveclimbed the ladder of salary and career increments set forth in the collective bargainingagreements.
We reject the contention of petitioners in proceeding No. 1 that the partial lifting of the wagefreeze on January 31, 2007 with respect to the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local409 (Local 409), should have applied to all unions. The new collective bargaining agreementbetween the Buffalo City School District and Local 409 providing for the lifting of the wagefreeze was properly approved and certified by the BFSA "as an exception to the BFSA WageFreeze Resolution" inasmuch as it constituted "an acceptable and appropriate contributiontowards alleviating the fiscal crisis of the City" (see Public Authorities Law §3858 [2] [c] [ii]). Such certification was specific to the new collective bargaining agreementreached with Local 409 and did not inure to the benefit of other bargaining units or lift the wagefreeze in its entirety. Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Carni and Gorski, JJ.