A New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the Village of Pelham violated New York state labor law by refusing to respond to a police union’s pre-bargaining information requests concerning vacant sergeant positions. The Village of Pelham Police Benevolent Association (PBA) is the exclusive bargaining representative for the Village’s police officers and sergeants. During negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement, the PBA became concerned after one sergeant retired and another announced his impending retirement, creating two vacancies in a department with six sergeant positions. The PBA feared prolonged vacancies could affect supervision, officer-in-charge pay, scheduling, safety, and other terms and conditions of employment, and sought information concerning the Village’s plans for filling the positions.
Beginning in July 2024, the PBA’s chief spokesperson, Anthony Solfaro, submitted a series of written information requests asking what steps, if any, the Village and Police Chief had taken to fill the vacancies. When the Village failed to respond, Solfaro sent follow-up requests before scheduled bargaining sessions and explained that the information was necessary for collective bargaining. Village Administrator Christopher Scelza ultimately responded that the Mayor and Board of Trustees had the exclusive authority to determine “if and when to fill vacancies” and accused the PBA of attempting to “interfere in the appointment process.” Later requests sought additional information concerning promotional eligibility lists, whether the Village had requested a promotional examination, whether promotional lists had been canvassed, and why the vacancies remained unfilled. The PBA filed an improper practice charge after concluding the Village had failed to provide the requested information.
The ALJ began by reviewing the standards governing information requests under New York’s public sector labor statute, commonly referred to as the Taylor Law. Under the Taylor Law, a public employee union has a general right to obtain information reasonably necessary for collective bargaining and contract administration. That obligation, however, is limited by “reasonableness, relevancy and necessity,” and an employer need not provide information that is readily available from another source or create information that does not exist.
Applying those principles, the ALJ found that the Village violated the Taylor Law by refusing to respond to the PBA’s July 3 and July 17, 2024, requests. Those requests sought information about “what steps, if any,” the Village or Police Chief had taken to fill the vacant sergeant positions. The ALJ concluded the requests were reasonably relevant and necessary because they arose during ongoing contract negotiations, shortly before a bargaining session, while another improper practice charge concerning vacant detective positions remained pending. The ALJ found it “self-evident” that the PBA sought the information to evaluate the impact of the vacancies during negotiations. Moreover, the requested information concerned actions taken by Village officials and therefore “would not necessarily be otherwise available” to the PBA through other means. The ALJ also observed that, had no action been taken, the Village could have complied with the Taylor Law simply by informing the PBA that neither it nor the Chief of Police had “taken any steps or made any decisions” regarding the vacancies.
The ALJ also rejected the Village’s argument that it had no duty to respond because decisions concerning promotions and appointments are management prerogatives. The ALJ explained that an employer’s obligation to furnish information does not depend on whether the underlying subject is itself a mandatory subject of bargaining. Rather, the question is whether the requested information is reasonably relevant and necessary to the PBA’s collective bargaining or contract administration responsibilities. Because the July 3 and July 17 requests met that standard, the Village was required to respond.
The ALJ reached a different conclusion with respect to several later requests. The August 8 request asking why the Village was “dragging its feet” and seeking the specific dates on which vacancies would be filled was denied because the record did not establish that the Village’s reasoning or projected dates were relevant or necessary to collective bargaining or contract administration. In addition, PERB precedent does not require an employer to provide information that does not yet exist, and there was no evidence the Village had determined when the vacancies would be filled.
Likewise, the ALJ dismissed the PBA’s requests for information concerning whether promotional eligible lists existed, how many names appeared on those lists, and whether the Village had canvassed them. The ALJ explained that an employer’s disclosure obligation is “circumscribed by the rules of reasonableness,” including whether the information is available elsewhere. Here, the requested information could have been obtained from the Westchester County Department of Human Resources, which maintains the promotional lists, or from the PBA’s own members. The ALJ also rejected requests seeking the Village’s rationale for not filling the vacancies, concluding the record did not establish that management’s reasoning was relevant or necessary to the PBA’s bargaining or contract administration duties.
The ALJ further found that the Village violated the Taylor Law by not responding to a portion of the PBA’s October 15 request concerning whether the Village had requested that a promotional examination for the sergeant position be administered in 2024. The ALJ concluded that information was reasonably relevant because it concerned the Village’s own actions toward creating promotional opportunities for bargaining-unit members during ongoing negotiations. The remainder of the October 15 requests either duplicated earlier requests that were properly denied or sought information that was available from other sources or not shown to be necessary.
Accordingly, the ALJ held that the Village violated the Taylor Law by failing to respond to the PBA’s July 3 and July 17, 2024 information requests and to one portion of its October 15, 2024 request. The ALJ ordered the Village to provide those responses and post a notice acknowledging the violation, but dismissed the remaining portions of the improper practice charge.
Village of Pelham Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. Village of Pelham, 59 PERB ¶ 4528, Case No. U-39593, 2026 WL 1348833 (N.Y. Pub. Emp. Rel. Bd. ALJ Mar. 24, 2026).