Relates to judicial review of final decisions of the public employment relations board

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jessica Ramos says this is needed

The current judicial review language in SERA § 707.4 does not contain a detailed explanation of the process for review. The reference to "where the unfair labor practice in question was alleged to have been engaged in" has led to claimed confusion about whether judicial review is imme- diately available for the Board's certification decisions, and to some parties arguing that certifications issued over 15 months ago are not "final." However, review is available currently under CPLR Article 78. The change that the current proposal makes is to shorten the timeframe that parties have to appeal final orders in court (30 days for unfair labor practice proceedings, and 10 days for certification proceedings). The existing law concerning appellate review of substantial evidence cases is the same as in PERB's proposal; however, SERA does not contain explicit provisions concerning substantial evidence review. Requiring an Article 78 proceeding to be brought within 30 days of receipt of the unfair labor practice proceeding mirrors the requirements of the Taylor Law in the public sector. Requiring such proceedings to be brought within 10 days for certification decisions is proposed to comport with the Legislature's intent that certification matters be decided promptly and is consistent with other time periods where expedi- ence is essential (see, for some examples, Education Law § 3020a.5; Civil Service Law § 209a.4.b; Labor Law § 27a.7.c). Section 708-a of SERA requires that PERB establish an electronic filing system to commence proceedings and for parties to file and serve papers. Electronic service of final Board orders is consistent with this mandate and reflects PERB's current practice in the private sector. Our proposed statutory language will continue to allow parties to opt for certified mail if they so prefer. Regarding requiring Article 78 proceedings to be brought in Albany Coun- ty, the mandatory venue for a special proceeding challenging a determi- nation by a New York State body or officer is Albany County Supreme Court, located in the Third Judicial District. This is due to the State's headquarters being in Albany. PERB is one of the only exceptions to this general rule. The purpose of having mandatory venues where the State is a defendant is not only for efficiency purposes, but also to allow for consistency in determinations because the Albany County Supreme Court and the Third Department, Appellate Division are accus- tomed to CPLR Article 78 special proceedings challenging agency deci- sions and, in fact, have specific court rules in place to accommodate those proceedings. This change brings PERB into uniformity with how the rest of the State works when its determinations are challenged. PERB's proposed § 704.4 (b) is a technical amendment and sets the proce- dures to be followed in one particular set of circumstances. It reflects the more detailed enforcement provisions of the Taylor Law, governing the public sector.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.