Triborough Amendment

The Taylor Law provides good support for both union employees and the municipal employer; however, when the law was originally enacted, the terms of any collectively bargained contract or negotiation were only in effect as long as the contract was in effect and not expired.

When the contract term was up, some employers took advantage of this and changed the terms without negotiation, usually to put pressure on the unions to agree to concessions. Some of these tactics included prolonging contract negotiations, going for long periods without raises, and changes in working conditions.

In 1969, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) )  had agreed to incremental increases based on one’s length of service, as per the contract. But there was no provision in the contract to support those increases upon expiration of the contract. So, although the TBTA maintained the salary and benefits to employees of the expired contract, they refused to pay the incremental increases as time went on.

So, in 1972, the NYS Public Employees Relation Board (PERB) decided that the TBTA cannot unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of employment contained within an expired agreement until a new agreement is negotiated, unless the employee organization engages in a strike. This became known as the Triborough Doctrine.

However, this did not resolve it across the board. This caused frustration with the employees, leading to “illegal” strikes just to get some leverage at the negotiating table. There were dozens of strikes each year and culminated in a high of 28 in 1975.

In 1982 the PERB enacted the Triborough Amendment, making it an improper practice for an employer to refuse to continue all the terms of an expired agreement until a new agreement is reached, provided the employee organization does not strike. The Amendment applies to all terms in the expired agreement.

In these days of anti-union sentiment, many think-tanks and municipal management organizations blame the Triborough Amendment as part of the tax problem by continuing contract terms that may include pay increases. But other reports suggest that by having known contractual terms, the Amendment actually helps municipalities by having predictable terms that can be budgeted for.

Removing the Triborough Amendment would only serve to hurt the collectively bargained employee by returning to a time almost 50 years ago, where management could provide a stranglehold on the unions and probably forcing strikes that not only hurt the image and finances of unionized employees, but disrupt operation of city services, hurting the public they serve.

It’s not the Taylor Law or Triborough Amendment that is the problem, but the contract terms that are negotiated and agreed to. The contracts that were negotiated under my working titles all had clear dates as to when increases would be provided and to how much they were. There were no provisions as to annual pay increases outside of the dates. The existing economic contract is now expired but, thanks to the Triborough Amendment, until another contract is negotiated, I can rest comfortably that my employer will not suddenly change terms of my employment or reduce my pay or benefits – nor does my employer (and the public) need to fear that me and my coworkers will strike to force the city to come to the negotiating table with terms that will negatively affect the city and the taxpayers.

Comments and Questions are Welcomed Below.