Many states have enacted statutes which offer viable alternatives to unions that wish to press their demands at the negotiation table but have been stripped of their power to conduct a lawful strike. Contending that New York needed a more effective method of resolving public sector disputes, Governor Rockefeller convened the Governor's Committee on Public Employee Relations in 1966, also known as the Taylor Committee. This committee proposed legislation that led to the passage in 1967 of the New York Public Employees' Fair Employment Act, commonly known as the Taylor Law. The Taylor Law not only prescribes rules and procedures for public employees in the State of New York but also permits any public employer to enact different "provisions and procedures" for the regulation of its own employees as long as these provisions are" substantially equivalent" to those found in the Taylor Law. Pursuant to this option, New York City enacted the New York City Collective Bargaining Law which established procedures for the resolution of bargaining impasses. The NYCCBL and the Taylor Law each attempt to resolve collective bargaining impasses in the public sector through multi-tiered dispute resolution procedures. Section II of this Note will examine the dispute resolution procedures of the Taylor Law and NYCCBL. Section III will analyze empirically the relative successes of both of these laws in resolving disputes. The Note concludes with the argument that the Taylor Law does not provide the most expeditious and judicious methods for resolving public sector disputes and more flexibility is needed for resolving disputes.
Robert H. Platt,
Comparison of Impasse Procedures: The New York City Collective Bargaining Law and the New York State Taylor Law,
9 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1039
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol9/iss4/10