Filed Date: 6/14/1990
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
Judgment, of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about January 11, 1988, which denied and dismissed petitioners’ petition pursuant to CPLR article 78, and the order of that same court, entered on or about April 11, 1989, which clarified the judgment, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Petitioners are Port Authority police officers who were, in 1981, placed on an unranked horizontal list of eligible candidates for promotion to the rank of sergeant. This list, which expired in January of 1984 and had a three-year duration period, was revived in 1985 due to a shortage of available candidates for the sergeant rank. In June of 1986, the Port Authority and the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) negotiated the following agreement for a new promotion procedure: "So long as the Port Authority has an alternate source for filling vacancies in Police Sergeant positions or is actively progressing toward the creation of a Police Sergeants eligibility list pursuant to a document captioned 'Procedure and
The new promotion procedure was thereafter approved by a majority of the PBA’s membership, petitioners’ duly recognized bargaining agent. In addition, the procedure contained a provision whereby individuals already on a "permanent eligibility roster” would automatically be placed on the new eligibility list. The only preexisting list which was considered "permanent” was a horizontal list established in 1976. However, the new eligibility list was a vertical one based upon test scores and performance appraisal. The instant petition was filed after the Port Authority refused to place petitioners on the new promotional list and also advised them that they were not on a permanent eligibility roster and that their list had expired in 1984. Although the Port Authority had subsequently extended the 1981 list beyond 1984, it had now expired with the establishment of the new procedure. The IAS court dismissed the petition in a memorandum decision and later clarified its determination. In that regard, petitioners lack the standing to bring this proceeding challenging their employer’s alleged misinterpretation of its agreement with the collective bargaining agent, the PBA (see, Chupka v Lorenz-Schneider Co., 12 NY2d 1, 6, appeal dismissed 372 US 227). They may only maintain this proceeding if it is demonstrated that the union failed in its duty of fair representation (see, Matter of Board of Educ. v Ambach, 70 NY2d 501, 508). Since petitioners do not allege such a failure, the IAS court properly dismissed the petition. Moreover, even assuming that petitioners did possess the standing to assert this challenge, we would