## Facts

- The Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. (union for NYPD officers) sought to bargain with the City of New York over disciplinary-related terms contained in an expired collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determined that five CBA provisions were prohibited subjects of bargaining because New York City law vests police disciplinary authority in the Police Commissioner.
- The disputed provisions addressed: (1) up to four hours to consult counsel before interrogation in a departmental investigation; (2) maintaining existing interrogation guidelines; (3) a joint subcommittee to develop procedures for timely resolution of disciplinary charges; (4) a pilot program referring certain disciplinary matters to an entity outside the police department; and (5) an expungement petition process for records when charges were not sustained.
- Supreme Court upheld PERB’s determination, concluding the City Charter and Administrative Code require leaving NYPD discipline to the Commissioner’s discretion.
- The Appellate Division affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals granted leave and reviewed the matter (in a consolidated opinion with a related police-discipline bargaining case).

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Taylor Law, police discipline may be a subject of collective bargaining when legislation or a local charter expressly commits disciplinary authority over the police department to designated local officials.
2. Whether the five expired-CBA provisions regulating investigation and discipline of NYPD officers are prohibited subjects of bargaining because they intrude on the Police Commissioner’s charter-based disciplinary authority.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division order sustaining PERB.
- The Court held that police discipline is not bargainable under the Taylor Law where the Legislature has expressly committed disciplinary authority over a police department to local officials.
- Because New York City law assigns disciplinary authority over NYPD officers to the Police Commissioner, the five disputed provisions were properly classified as prohibited subjects of bargaining.
- PERB’s determination that the City was not required to bargain over those provisions was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- The Taylor Law’s general authorization for bargaining over terms and conditions of employment does not permit bargaining over matters that conflict with a specific legislative allocation of authority.
- When legislation (including a charter-based scheme authorized by law) expressly commits police disciplinary authority to local officials, collective bargaining may not limit, share, or materially alter that authority.
- Contract provisions governing the conduct, timing, and structure of internal investigations and disciplinary processes may be treated as disciplinary rules, not merely general employment conditions, when they directly regulate how discipline is carried out.
- PERB may classify proposed bargaining subjects as mandatory, permissive, or prohibited; matters barred by statutory or charter constraints are prohibited.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that where New York City law vests exclusive disciplinary authority over police officers in the Police Commissioner, contractual provisions that regulate core aspects of investigations and discipline are prohibited subjects of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law, and the City has no duty to negotiate them.


Patrolmen’s Benevolent Ass’n of City of N.Y., Inc. v. N.Y. State Pub. Emp. Rels. Bd., 6 N.Y.3d 563 (2006)