## Facts

- MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) operated part of New York City’s public bus service and employed workers represented by Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local 100 (Local 100).
- Contract negotiations between Local 100 and the transit employer were historically contentious; Local 100 had engaged in prior strike activity and related litigation under New York’s Taylor Law.
- In December 2005, Local 100 and other transit unions called a strike that shut down New York City’s public transportation system.
- The strike occurred despite a standing court injunction barring a strike under the Taylor Law, which prohibits strikes by public-employee organizations.
- During the run-up to the strike, MTA Bus pressed Local 100 to bargain over pension-related matters even though pensions were not a mandatory subject of bargaining; Local 100 later cited this bargaining stance as “extreme provocation.”
- After Local 100 walked out on December 20, 2005, the court held Local 100 in contempt for violating the anti-strike injunction and imposed a $1 million-per-day fine while the strike continued.
- MTA Bus then filed a separate action seeking an order that Local 100 had forfeited its statutory privilege to have union dues deducted from members’ wages (dues checkoff) as a sanction under Civil Service Law § 210(3)(f), as applied to transit entities by Chapter 929, § 34 of the Laws of 1986.
- The court held five days of hearings on whether dues checkoff forfeiture should be imposed and, if so, the proper duration and terms.
- Local 100 presented evidence that it attempted to limit harm from the strike (including steps to safeguard facilities and equipment and to have operators complete their runs before walking off).
- Local 100 also attempted to show “extreme provocation” in bargaining, but its proof focused primarily on MTA Bus’s insistence on pension bargaining.

## Issues

1. Whether, for a transit employer covered by Civil Service Law § 209(5) and Chapter 929, § 34 of the Laws of 1986, the Supreme Court (rather than PERB) has the power to impose the Civil Service Law § 210(3) dues checkoff forfeiture penalty after a court determination of a Taylor Law strike violation.
2. Whether, once the court has determined that Local 100 violated Civil Service Law § 210(1) by striking in defiance of the injunction, Civil Service Law § 210(3)(f) requires a dues checkoff forfeiture, leaving only the length and terms to judicial discretion.
3. Whether Local 100’s claims of bargaining “provocation” and its mitigation efforts justify denying or shortening the dues checkoff forfeiture sought by MTA Bus.

## Decision

- The court held that Chapter 929, § 34 of the Laws of 1986 directs the court to apply the sanctions scheme in Civil Service Law § 210(3) when the court, acting under Judiciary Law § 751, has determined that a covered transit employee organization violated Civil Service Law § 210(1).
- Because the strike violation had been determined by the court, the court concluded it was required to impose the statutory remedy of dues checkoff forfeiture under Civil Service Law § 210(3)(f), with discretion limited to setting the duration and any conditions.
- The court rejected Local 100’s “extreme provocation” claim, finding the evidence showed no more than hard bargaining, including management’s insistence on bargaining over pensions.
- The court considered Local 100’s evidence of steps taken to reduce damage and protect property but found those actions did not excuse the illegal strike or avoid the statutory consequence.
- The court granted MTA Bus’s request for dues checkoff forfeiture and ordered forfeiture for a period set by the court pursuant to Civil Service Law § 210(3)(f), as applied through Chapter 929, § 34.

## Legal Principles

- Civil Service Law § 210(1) bars public-employee strikes, and a union’s participation in a strike in violation of an anti-strike injunction can be addressed through contempt sanctions under Judiciary Law § 751.
- Under Chapter 929, § 34 of the Laws of 1986 (as applied to covered transit employers and unions), when a court determines—through its Judiciary Law § 751 powers—that an employee organization violated Civil Service Law § 210(1), the court must apply Civil Service Law § 210(3), including dues checkoff forfeiture.
- Civil Service Law § 210(3)(f) uses mandatory language (“shall order”) requiring a forfeiture of dues deduction privileges once the statutory predicate is established; the decision-maker’s judgment concerns the forfeiture period and terms.
- Alleged employer provocation may be considered in setting the remedy, but ordinary bargaining positions—even over disputed subjects—do not justify a public-employee strike prohibited by the Taylor Law.
- Steps taken by a union to reduce operational harm during a strike may be weighed in fixing the sanction, but they do not negate the strike violation or remove the statutory basis for forfeiture.

## Conclusion

In MTA Bus Company v. Transport Workers Union of America, the Supreme Court, Kings County held that Chapter 929, § 34 requires the court to apply Civil Service Law § 210(3) after it has found, in connection with an unlawful transit strike, that the union violated the Taylor Law’s no-strike rule. Because Local 100 struck in defiance of an injunction and the strike violation was established, the court ruled that dues checkoff forfeiture under § 210(3)(f) had to be imposed, and it set a forfeiture period after hearings that rejected Local 100’s provocation defense and considered (but did not treat as excusing) its mitigation efforts.


MTA Bus Company v. Transport Workers Union of America, 12 Misc. 3d 943, 820 N.Y.S.2d 479 (2006)