Office of Collective Bargaining

Law & Rules

Forms

Representation Docket

Recent Decisions

Resources for Practitioners

If You Don't Have an Attorney

CONTACT US

RECENT DECISIONS

CWA sought to represent Customer Information Representatives by accretion. Intervenors Local 237 and DC 37 also sought to accrete the titles. The City and NYCHA took no position as to the proper placement of the title. The Board found that the bargaining units were equally appropriate and ordered an election on unit placement. For further details, see CWA, L. 1180, 3 OCB2d 32 (BCB 2010)(Rep) (Docket No. AC-34-07).

The Union filed a petition to amend Certification No. 3-88 to add the title Administrative Staff Analyst Levels II and III. The City and NYCHA argued that the title was excluded from collective bargaining as managerial and/or confidential. The Board found that, with certain exceptions, the title was eligible for collective bargaining and appropriately added to the certification. For further details, see OSA, 3 OCB2d 33 (BOC 2010) (Rep) (Docket No. AC-15-04).

The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation filed a petition to amend District Council 37's Certification No. 46D-75 to delete the title Associate Bookkeeper following reclassification. The Board amended the certification to delete the vacant title. For further details, see DC 37, 3 OCB2d 34 (BOC 2010) (Rep) (Docket No. AC-54-10).

District Council 37 filed a petition to amend Certification No. 16-2007 to add the title Hemodialysis Patient Care Technician. The Board amended the certification. The petition is denied. For further details, see DC 37, 3 OCB2d 35 (BOC 2010) (Rep) (Docket No. AC-58-10).

The Union alleged that HHC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by unilaterally changing the alternative work schedules for three of its employees, by failing to bargain over these changes, and by failing to provide the information needed to collectively bargain. HHC contended that the improper practice petition should be deferred to arbitration because it involves the interpretation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, HHC contended that the instant petition should be denied as the Union did not establish that HHC failed to bargain in good faith over a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Board found that the issues related to the implementation of these new work schedules and the alleged refusal to bargain over that decision should be deferred to arbitration. The Board further found that HHC violated its duty to bargain in failing to produce information responsive to one of the Union's six document requests, while HHC did not violate the NYCCBL when it did not respond to the Union's other five requests. Finally, the Board denied the Union's claim that HHC independently interfered with the statutory rights of the Union's members. Accordingly, the Board deferred to arbitration a portion of the Union's instant petition, then granted the petition in part, and denied the petition in part. For further details, see New York State Nurses Association, 3 OCB2d 36 (BCB 2010)(IP) (Docket No. BCB-2827-10).

The Union primarily alleged that the City retaliated against a Union member for filing an out-of-title grievance by subjecting her to a higher level of scrutiny regarding her use of sick leave. The City contended that a majority of the allegations were untimely filed, that the member was properly placed "on documentation," and that anti-union animus did not motivate DSNY to place her in that category. The Board found that many of the Union's claims were untimely, except for the allegation that the member was subjected to a higher level of scrutiny. Furthermore, in examining the totality of the circumstantial evidence regarding the motivation behind DSNY's employment action, the Board found that the Union did not show that DSNY retaliated against Malatzky for purposes of anti-Union animus. For further details, see PLocal 2627, DC 37, 3 OCB2d 37 (BCB 2009)(IP) (Docket No. BCB-2741-09).

The Union alleged that the FDNY failed to bargain in good faith over the issuance of an Excessive Overtime Control Policy, which includes up to 96-hours of Roster Staffing overtime towards a new cap on discretionary overtime. The Union argued that by including Roster Staffing overtime in the overtime cap, the City unilaterally changed a procedure and jeopardized the integrity of Roster Staffing, in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4). The Union also sought to bargain over the practical impact that the overtime cap will have on its members. The City alleged that the claim is untimely, that the claim should be deferred to arbitration, and that it must be dismissed, as the claim involves an issue that falls under a statutorily granted management right. The Board found that the matter was timely filed and should not be deferred, but that the record did not support the Union's claims that the FDNY changed its procedures or that the Overtime Policy has a practical impact on its members. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. For further details, see UFA, 3 OCB2d 38 (BCB 2010)(IP) (Docket No. BCB-2795-09).