The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York recently ruled in a significant case involving the Village of Monticello and the AFSCME Local 750-9, Council 66, AFL-CIO. The court's decision, issued on July 30, 2026, confirmed that the Village violated labor laws by attempting to coerce an employee into resigning from the union by lowering his salary. This ruling impacts public employees in New York, reinforcing their rights to union representation without fear of retaliation.
The case, docketed as CV-25-1357, originated from a dispute between the Village of Monticello and its former employee, Jay Sherb, who served as the superintendent of the Village's Department of Public Works (DPW). The Village had initially entered into a two-year employment contract with Sherb, which included a specific salary. However, after a change in village management, Sherb faced pressure to leave the union, which led to a significant conflict over his salary and employment rights.
In 2020, Sherb signed an employment contract with the Village of Monticello. By July 2021, he and the then-mayor, George Nikolados, agreed to a $10,000 salary increase, which was included in the Village's budget. In 2022, Sherb sought to join the union, and after discussions with union representatives and Nikolados, he was accepted into the union as a “working supervisor.” However, following a change in the Village Board's majority, new management under James Snowden pressured Sherb to resign from the union, which led to the Village Board adopting a resolution that reduced his salary back to its original amount.
The union filed a charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), claiming that the Village's actions constituted an improper employer practice under the Taylor Law, which governs public employee relations in New York. The Village responded by seeking a clarification of Sherb's union membership status, arguing that his managerial role excluded him from union representation. The case was then transferred to the Appellate Division for review.
The court ruled that the Village's actions were indeed improper. The judges found that the former village manager, Nikolados, had the authority to agree to Sherb's inclusion in the union. The ruling stated, "the Village's resolution was an improper practice as an attempt to coerce Sherb out of the union." The court upheld the findings of the ALJ, which determined that the Village's actions violated the Taylor Law by interfering with Sherb's rights to union representation.
The judges noted that the Village's resolution to lower Sherb's salary was an attempt to intimidate him into resigning from the union. The court emphasized that public employers must negotiate in good faith with employee representatives regarding employment terms, including salary and union membership. The ruling reinforced the principle that public employees have the right to join unions without fear of retaliation or coercion from their employers.
This decision is significant for public employees in New York, as it reaffirms their rights under the Taylor Law and clarifies the authority of village managers in labor relations. The ruling emphasizes that any attempt by public employers to manipulate employees' union status through salary adjustments or other means can be deemed an improper practice.
The court's ruling also addressed the Village's argument that Sherb's managerial position should exclude him from union representation. The judges found that the Village's petition for clarification was not appropriate in this case, stating that a decertification petition would have been the correct course of action if the Village believed Sherb should not be represented by the union. The court concluded that the Village's actions were not only improper but also lacked legal justification under the Taylor Law.
As a result of this ruling, the Village of Monticello is required to restore Sherb's salary and benefits as ordered by the ALJ. The court confirmed that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that the Village's arguments against it were without merit.
This case highlights the importance of protecting workers' rights to union representation and the legal frameworks that support collective bargaining in New York. The ruling serves as a reminder to public employers about their obligations under labor laws and the consequences of failing to adhere to these regulations.
Looking ahead, the Village of Monticello may consider appealing this decision, but the court's ruling is a strong affirmation of the protections afforded to public employees under the Taylor Law. There are no related cases pending that could directly affect this ruling, but it may influence future labor relations disputes involving public employees and their unions.