Seymour, 19 OCB2d 7 (BCB 2026)
Petitioner, pro se, alleged that DOHMH violated his Weingarten rights by issuing him a counseling memo via email outside of the presence of his Union representative and separately violated NYCCBL § 12 306(a)(1) by interfering with his ability to obtain Union representation in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding. The City argued that there was no Weingarten violation because the counseling memo was issued without any meeting and DOHMH included Petitioner’s Union representative in scheduling the subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that DOHMH violated his Weingarten rights or otherwise interfered with his union activity. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.