## Facts

- The New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority employed hourly workers represented by Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100.
- The parties’ collective bargaining agreement expired in mid-December 2005.
- On December 10, 2005, union members authorized the union’s executive board to call a strike if no new agreement was reached by expiration.
- New York’s Taylor Law prohibits strikes by public employees, including transit workers.
- On December 12, 2005, the trial court issued an injunction prohibiting the union from striking.
- On December 20, 2005, the union struck, effectively shutting down New York City’s transit system and causing substantial public disruption and economic harm.
- The transit authorities moved to hold the union in criminal contempt for violating the injunction and sought substantial per diem fines.
- The trial court denied the union’s request for a jury trial, found the union in criminal contempt, and imposed $1 million per day in fines, totaling $2.5 million.
- The union appealed, challenging the contempt determination, the denial of a jury trial, and the size of the fines.

## Issues

1. Whether an organizational defendant charged with criminal contempt for violating a strike injunction is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment based on the magnitude of the fines.
2. Whether per diem criminal-contempt fines totaling $2.5 million were lawful and constitutionally non-excessive given the union’s conduct, the public harm, and the union’s financial resources.
3. Whether the trial court properly exercised its contempt authority to punish and deter willful disobedience of a Taylor Law injunction.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the criminal contempt finding against the union for willful violation of the strike injunction.
- The court upheld the denial of a jury trial, concluding the contempt constituted a “petty” offense for Sixth Amendment purposes when assessed in relation to the union’s resources.
- The court sustained the $2.5 million sanction, holding the fines were within the court’s contempt power and were not unconstitutionally excessive or an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Public-employee unions that strike in violation of the Taylor Law and a court injunction may be punished for criminal contempt, including through significant monetary sanctions.
- In determining whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury trial for criminal contempt involving an organization, the seriousness of a monetary penalty may be assessed relative to the organization’s size and ability to pay; a large absolute fine may still be “petty.”
- Review of contempt fines considers willfulness of disobedience, duration and scope of the harm, deterrence needs, and the contemnor’s financial capacity.
- Criminal-contempt sanctions may be structured on a per diem basis to reflect continuing defiance and escalating public harm, particularly where essential public services are interrupted.

## Conclusion

The court held that the union’s illegal transit strike in defiance of an injunction warranted criminal-contempt punishment, that the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury trial for the organizational contemnor under the circumstances, and that $2.5 million in per diem fines was a permissible, proportionate sanction aimed at punishing and deterring violations of the Taylor Law.


N.Y.C. Transit Auth. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., Local 100, 35 A.D.3d 73, 822 N.Y.S.2d 579 (2d Dep’t 2006)