Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 237, City Employees Union, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Public Information and Health Titles bargaining unit, Certification No. 62C-75, has been amended to reflect this addition.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 237, City Employees Union, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Public Information and Health Titles bargaining unit, Certification No. 62C-75, has been amended to reflect this addition.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals voluntarily recognized Doctors Council as the bargaining representative of the title described below, and the Clinicians bargaining unit has been amended as follows to reflect this addition:

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to respond to grievances he filed in August 2023 and his follow up inquiry in October 2023. The Union and the City both argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation because the Union did not act in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner. The Union also argued that Petitioner’s claims were untimely. The Board found that Petitioner’s claims were untimely and that, further, he failed to establish that the Union violated its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Petitioner filed a pro se improper practice petition alleging the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to represent him adequately in challenging his Civil Service Law § 73 termination. The Union argued that there was no contractual basis for challenging Petitioner’s dismissal and that its actions were not discriminatory, arbitrary, or taken in bad faith. The City argued that Petitioner failed to state a cause of action under NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) and that therefore any derivative claim against it pursuant to NYCCBL § 12-306(d) must also fail. The Board found that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union argued that the NYPD failed to negotiate over the uniform allowance after the NYPD revised its uniform policy and deauthorized some styles of uniform pants. The City argued that determining the uniform policy is a managerial right under NYCCBL § 12-307(b), that there was no change to the uniform policy, that it had satisfied its bargaining obligation by negotiating a uniform allowance with the Union, and that the matter should be deferred to arbitration. The Board found that the mid-term change to uniform requirements effectively reduced the value of the uniform allowance, a mandatory subject of bargaining. However, the Board declined to suspend implementation of the order because the determination of uniforms is not a mandatory subject. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

Petitioner, pro se, claimed that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to adequately represent him during his disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner appealed the portions of the petition that the Executive Secretary found untimely. On the remaining claims, the Union argued that it did not breach its duty of fair representation because it represented him as it would any bargaining member. HHC also argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed portions of the petition untimely and that the timely facts did not establish that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Petitioner, pro se, alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to adequately represent her regarding various reasonable accommodation issues. The Union and the City each argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union filed a petition to amend Certification No. 3-88 to add Administrative Staff Analysts in managerial pay plan level IV. The City and NYCHA argued that employees in this pay level were excluded from collective bargaining as managerial and/or confidential. The parties reached an agreement regarding the managerial and/or confidential status of the majority of the employees at issue, and the Board determined the status of the remaining employees. Based on the agreements of the parties and the record, the Board designated Administrative Staff Analysts in managerial pay plan level IV managerial and/or confidential, with the exception of certain positions that are eligible for collective bargaining.

Effective immediately, the City Council has voluntarily recognized the Association of Legislative Employees as the bargaining representative of the titles described below, and the NYC Council Staff bargaining unit has been amended as follows to reflect these additions.

Petitioner claimed that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to adequately investigate her discrimination claim and failing to represent her in her wrongful termination claim. The Union argued that it did not breach its duty of fair representation because it promptly responded to Petitioner’s inquiries and represented her. The City also argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that the allegations did not state a claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Petitioner filed an improper practice petition alleging that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12- 306(b)(3) by failing to promptly respond to her communications and delaying the filing of grievances on her behalf. Respondents argued that Petitioner did not allege facts demonstrating that the Union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner. The Board found that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union filed a petition to add the title Director of Health Care Program Planning/Analysis (HMH) to Certification No. 3-

88, the Staff Analysts bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added the title to the bargaining unit.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals voluntarily recognized 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East as the bargaining representative of the title described below, and the Pharmacists & Dieticians bargaining unit has been amended as follows to reflect this addition:

Based on the results of an election, the Board terminated Certification No. 5-2005 and certified the Environmental Police Benevolent Association as the exclusive bargaining representative for Environmental Police Officers.

The Union appealed certain aspects of the Report and Recommendations of an Impasse Panel arguing that the Panel erred by not considering the statutory requirement of the interest and welfare of the public and that the Panel’s decision was not substantially based upon the record evidence. The City appealed other aspects of the Report and Recommendations of the Panel arguing that the Panel did not properly consider the record evidence or public safety in reaching its decision on bargaining demands concerning vision requirements and contractual promotion language for Lifeguards. As to each other’s objections, the City and Union contend that the Panel properly considered the evidence and arguments of the parties and issued a report that is supported by the record and follows the criteria set forth in the NYCCBL. After consolidating both appeals into this proceeding, the Board denied both the Union’s and the City’s appeals.

The Union claimed that the Board of Elections unilaterally changed the eligibility criteria for annual bonuses, in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4), which resulted in the Board of Elections withholding payment of the bonuses to Trainer Assistants. The City contended that the petition should be dismissed as untimely or, in the alternative, deferred to arbitration because the Union is attempting to enforce a contractual provision, and that there was no change of criteria because the Board of Elections merely exercised its managerial prerogative to issue discretionary bonuses. The Board found that the petition is timely, declined to defer the matter to arbitration, and held that the eligibility criteria for annual bonuses is a mandatory subject of bargaining that the Board of Elections unilaterally changed in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4). Accordingly, the petition was granted.

The Union claimed that the City and DOF violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (4), and (5) when DOF unilaterally implemented a new procedure for Deputy Sheriffs and Supervising Deputy Sheriffs to utilize annual leave. The City argues that the Union has failed to demonstrate a change that would trigger a duty to bargain under NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(4). Moreover, the City avers that the procedure for selecting annual leave fits within the City’s managerial right to determine the means and methods by which government operations are conducted. As a result, the City claims it has no duty under NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(4) to bargain over the alleged change. The Board found that procedures for requesting, and use of annual leave is a mandatory subject of bargaining and that DOF violated the duty to bargain in good faith by unilaterally changing it. Accordingly, the petition is granted.

Petitioner filed an improper practice petition alleging that she did not receive correct holiday pay and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by its handling of the complaint. Respondents claimed that the petition was untimely filed. The Union also argued that it promptly answered Petitioner’s inquiries about the grievance and has properly exercised its discretion in handling its group grievance over holiday pay. The City also argued that the Board should defer this matter to the arbitration procedure. The Board found that the petition was untimely, that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation, and that deferral was inappropriate. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that the Department of Social Services violated the Citywide Agreement by refusing to allow employees in Union-represented titles to utilize compensatory time they earned during summer hours prior to 2023. The City argued that the Union failed to establish the requisite nexus between the subject of the grievance and the Agreement. The Board found that a nexus existed as to the Union’s claims. Accordingly, the Board denied the City’s petition challenging arbitrability.

Petitioner appealed the determination of the Executive Secretary of the Board of Collective Bargaining dismissing a portion of his improper practice petition as untimely and for failure to plead facts sufficient to establish a violation of the NYCCBL. Petitioner argued that his claims were timely and that he had pled sufficient facts to establish that the UFA and the FDNY violated the NYCCBL. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly dismissed all but two of the claims as untimely or insufficient and denied the appeal.

The Union filed a petition seeking to add titles Senior Accountant Investigator (Rackets), Supervising Accountant Investigator (Rackets),

and Principal Accountant Investigator (Rackets) to Certification No. 46D-75, the Accounting and EDP bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added the Senior Accountant Investigator (Rackets) and Supervising Accountant Investigator (Rackets) titles to the bargaining unit.

EPBA filed a petition to represent Environmental Police Officers, currently represented by LEEBA. LEEBA argued that EPBA is not a

bona fide labor organization and that some signatures collected for EPBA’s showing of interest were invalid. The Board found that EPBA is a bona fide labor organization. Since EPBA filed a timely petition supported by a sufficient showing of interest, the Board ordered an election.

The Union claimed that the DOC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) when an Assistant Deputy Warden interfered with a facility tour by Union officials and admonished a Union delegate during a labor-management meeting. The City argues that the Union has not alleged facts that establish a violation of the NYCCBL and that the Assistant Deputy Warden had legitimate business reasons to engage in the actions alleged to be interference. The Board found that Assistant Deputy Warden’s interference with the Union’s facility tour violated NYCCBL §12-306(a)(1), but that his comments during the labor-management meeting did not. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

Petitioner appealed the Executive Secretary’s determination dismissing her petition for untimeliness and failure to state a violation of the NYCCBL. Petitioner argued that her petition should be deemed timely because she filed her petition within four months of realizing that she was entitled to a grievance hearing regarding her termination despite previously being told that she did not have grievance rights. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the petition untimely and insufficient. Accordingly, the appeal was denied.

The City filed a petition challenging the arbitrability of the Union’s grievance alleging that DOHMH violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The Union claimed that DOHMH failed to pay Grievant for time spent on leave awaiting the resolution of her appeal of the denial of her reasonable accommodation request to be exempt from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement. The City contended that the right to be paid for such time arose from a Memorandum of Agreement that was not in effect until after Grievant’s appeal had been resolved. The City thus argued that this grievance was not subject to arbitration because the Union failed to establish the necessary nexus between the subject matter of the grievance, the payment for time spent on leave, and the source of the alleged right, the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the request for arbitration was granted.

Petitioner filed an improper practice petition alleging that she did not receive a contractual ratification bonus which she believes she was entitled to receive, and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by refusing to assist her. Respondents claimed that Petitioner was not eligible for the ratification bonus. Respondent Union also argues that it responded promptly to Petitioner’s inquiries on the subject and properly exercised its discretion not to pursue a grievance on her behalf. The Board found that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union filed a petition to add the title Assistant Counsel-PD to Certification No. CWR-44/67, the Attorneys bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added employees in the title to the bargaining unit, with the exception of one employee who is designated managerial and/or confidential.

Petitioner appealed the Executive Secretary’s determination dismissing her petition for untimeliness and failure to plead facts sufficient to establish a violation of the NYCCBL. Petitioner argued that her petition should be deemed timely and that she pled sufficient facts to establish that the Union breached the duty of fair representation. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the petition untimely and insufficient. Accordingly, the appeal was denied.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to assist her or file grievances on her behalf regarding a change to her work assignment. The Union and the City separately argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Petitioner filed a verified improper practice petition alleging that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of § 12-306(b)(3) of the NYCCBL by failing to adequately represent her regarding her claims of a hostile work environment and wrongful termination. The Union argued that it could not grieve Petitioner’s termination due to her status as a probationary employee and had no obligation to pursue grievances regarding matters it judged to be non-meritorious. HHC argued that Petitioner failed to state factual allegations sufficient to claim a violation of the NYCCBL. The Board found that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

FTWU filed a petition to represent the Marine Consolidated Titles bargaining unit, currently represented by MMP. It alleged that its petition was timely pursuant to an exception to the contract bar rule because a large percentage of employees had signed cards with FTWU, the members believe that MMP had, in effect, abandoned the unit, and MMP had negotiated only one contract. The Board found that the exception to the contract bar rule for unusual or extraordinary circumstances was not applicable because MMP was not defunct and had not abandoned representation of the bargaining unit. Accordingly, it dismissed FTWU’s petition as untimely.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized the New York State Nurses Association as the bargaining representative of the title described below, and the Staff Nurses bargaining unit has been amended as follows to reflect this addition.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized the New York State Nurses Association as the bargaining representative of the title described below, and the Staff Nurses bargaining unit has been amended as follows to reflect this addition:

Petitioner appealed a portion of the determination of the Executive Secretary of the Board of Collective Bargaining, which dismissed as untimely a NYCCBL §12-306(a)(3) claim made on behalf of the Local 508 Treasurer. Petitioner argued that it had identified discrete, specific instances of the adverse action against the Local 508 Treasurer that occurred within the statutory time period. The Board found that Petitioner pled a timely cause of action, but deferred to arbitration the factual question of whether DPR violated the contract by assigning Rodriguez out-of-title duties. The Board retained jurisdiction over the retaliation issue in the event it remains unresolved following arbitration.

Petitioner appealed the determination of the Executive Secretary of the Board of Collective Bargaining dismissing her petition for failure to plead facts sufficient to establish a violation of the NYCCBL. Petitioner argued that she pled sufficient facts to establish that the Union breached the duty of fair representation. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the petition insufficient and denied the appeal.

Petitioner alleged that HHC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) when it terminated his employment in retaliation for requesting that a Union representative be present at a supervisory meeting. HHC claimed that Petitioner, a probationary employee, failed to allege a prima facie case of retaliation and that it terminated him for poor work performance. The Board found that a prima facie case was not established because Petitioner did not plead facts to show that his union activity was a motivating factor in HHC’s decision to terminate him. Accordingly, the Board denied the petition.

The Union claimed that the FDNY violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by discontinuing a practice of paying a time and a half rate to bargaining unit members engaged in mandatory trainings. The City argued that the FDNY’s actions were within its management rights and that there was no such past practice. The Board found that paying bargaining unit members their standard wage while engaged in mandatory training during regular work hours was not a departure from existing policy or practice. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

The Union filed a petition to add Confidential Strategy Planner titles to Certification No. 3-88, the Staff Analysts

bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added employees in the Confidential Strategy Planner (Buildings) and Confidential Strategy Planner (Kings County DA) titles to the bargaining unit, with the exception of three positions that are designated managerial or confidential.

The Union filed a petition seeking to add NYCHA employees in the Computer Systems Manager, Computer Operations Manager, Telecommunications Manager, and Administrative Management Auditor titles to Certification No. 46D-75, the Accounting and EDP bargaining unit. As prior Board decisions had previously added employees

in these titles in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit and designated employees in managerial pay plan levels III and above as managerial, the Board further designated two positions at NYCHA managerial or confidential pursuant to a stipulation.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized Communications Workers of America, Local 1180, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Principal Administrative Associates bargaining unit, Certification No. 41-73, has been amended to reflect this addition.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 237, City Employees Union, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Public Information and Health Titles bargaining unit, Certification No. 62C-75, has been amended to reflect this addition.

Petitioner appealed the determination of the Executive Secretary of the Board of Collective Bargaining dismissing his petition for failure to plead facts sufficient to establish a violation of the NYCCBL. Petitioner argued that he pled sufficient facts to establish that the Union breached the duty of fair representation and that the Executive Secretary’s determination erroneously relied on the Union’s position, overlooked the Union’s bad faith, and ignored the FDNY’s discriminatory actions. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the petition insufficient and denied the appeal.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to appeal her suspension and neglecting to communicate its decision not to appeal. Petitioner also alleged that the Union failed to adequately represent her regarding a warning memorandum for being absent without leave. The Union and the City separately argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union alleged that the City and OATH violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by failing to bargain over changes it made to working conditions of Hearing Officers (Per Session) following the shift to remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, to the extent they are not mandatory subjects of bargaining, the practical impact of those changes. Additionally, the Union alleged that the City and OATH violated NYCCBL § 12-306(c)(4) by refusing to provide information relevant to claims within the scope of bargaining. The City argued that OATH’s decision to assign Hearing Officers to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting working conditions fall squarely within the City’s management rights under the NYCCBL. The Board found that the City and OATH failed to bargain in good faith on issues of payment and reimbursement for equipment required to work remotely, changes to lunch breaks and the number of days per week a HOPS must work, and a workload impact. In addition, it found that the City and OATH failed to provide information the Union requested relating to workplace health and safety. In all other respects, the Board found that the City and OATH did not violate NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4). Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

The Union claimed that DOT violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) when it terminated a Shop Steward during his probationary period in retaliation for union activity. The City argued that the Shop Steward was not terminated for his union activity, but rather for his lateness and poor work performance. The Board found that the Union established a prima facie case of retaliation and that DOT did not rebut the prima facie case or establish a legitimate business reason for terminating the Shop Steward. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

NYC Health + Hospitals sought to delete the Ultrasound Supervisor title from the Institutional Titles bargaining unit, Certification No. 14-80, and add it to the Public Information and Health Titles bargaining unit, Certification No. 62C-75, to reflect the reclassification of the title. The Board amended the certifications.

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized the Organization of Staff Analysts, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Staff Analyst bargaining unit, Certification No 3-88, has been amended to reflect this addition.

The Union alleged that the NYPD violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by unilaterally implementing new procedures for appointing Commanding Officers. It further alleged that the new appointment procedures have a practical impact on its bargaining unit members’ terms and conditions of employment, including workload. The City argued that the selection process for Commanding Officers is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. It also argued that the Union failed to establish a practical impact. The Board found that the decision to require a new panel interview and community meeting was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, but that the procedures relating to the panel interview and community meeting that affect terms and conditions of employment were mandatorily bargainable. It found that all other changes to the Commanding Officer selection process were non-bargainable. Further, it found that the pleadings did not allege facts sufficient to warrant a hearing on practical impact. Accordingly, the improper practice portion of the petition was denied, and the scope of bargaining portion of the petition was granted only as to procedures relating to the panel interview and community meeting.

The UFA and UFOA claimed that the City violated § 12-306(a)(1), (4) and (5) of the NYCCBL by failing to bargain over the Mayor’s order that all City employees be vaccinated by October 29, 2021. The Unions argued that the Vaccine Mandate implicates numerous mandatory subjects of bargaining and constitutes a new qualification of employment that must be bargained. They further argued that the Vaccine Mandate created a practical impact on employees’ health, safety, and workload. The City argued that it had a managerial right to impose the Vaccine Mandate on employees due to the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It additionally argued that the Unions’ claims of practical impact are speculative and conclusory. The Board found that the Vaccine Mandate was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and that the petition did not allege facts sufficient to warrant a hearing on practical impact. However, it found that the City had a duty to bargain over procedures related to proof of vaccination. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and dismissed in part.

The Union claimed that the City violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(5) when it terminated unvaccinated bargaining unit members and ceased their health benefits. The City argued that termination is the consequence of failing to comply with the Vaccine Mandate, which was a managerial prerogative due to the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Board found that the City did not have a duty to bargain over the decision to terminate employees for failing to comply with the Vaccine Mandate. Further, the Board found that the City did not refuse to bargain over termination procedures. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Hospital Technicians bargaining unit, Certification No. 16-2007, has been amended to reflect this addition.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized the Organization of Staff Analysts, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Staff Analyst bargaining unit, Certification No 3-88, has been amended to reflect this addition.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 237, City Employees Union, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Public Information and Health Titles bargaining unit, Certification No. 62C-75, has been amended to reflect this addition.

Petitioner claimed that the City violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by failing to grant his transfer requests and disciplining him for absenteeism in retaliation for filing an improper practice petition against the City, inquiring about a late paycheck, and requesting union representation at a supervisory meeting. The City argued that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation or a violation of his Weingarten rights. The Board found that Petitioner failed to plead facts that demonstrate that the City retaliated against him or violated his Weingarten rights. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized Civil Service Technical Guild, Local 375, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Engineering and Scientific bargaining unit, Certification No. 26-78, has been amended to reflect this addition.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized Civil Service Technical Guild, Local 375, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative of the title described below. The Engineering and Scientific bargaining unit, Certification No. 26-78, has been amended to reflect this addition.

The Union filed a petition to add the title Director of Health Care Program/Planning Analysis to Certification No. 3-88, the Staff Analysts bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added employees in the title to the bargaining unit, with the exception of certain employees who are designated managerial.

The Union filed a petition to add the title Director, Systems and Programming in managerial pay plan levels I, II, and III to Certification No. 3-88, the Staff Analysts bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added employees in the title to the bargaining unit, with the exception of seven employees currently holding the title.

Petitioner claimed that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) when it failed to help her file grievances asserting that her employer had not provided her with sufficient personal protective equipment. The Union and the City argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that the allegations did not state a claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union alleged that the NYPD violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) and § 12-307(b) by refusing to bargain over the assignment of certain vehicle tows from crime and emergency scenes previously performed by MVOs to TEA Level IIIs and assigning disabled NYPD vehicle tows to private contractors. The Union also claimed that a safety impact arose as a result of the NYPD’s removal of NYPD decals on trucks utilized by MVOs. The City argued that the claims regarding the transfer of disabled NYPD vehicle tows and the practical impact of the removal of NYPD decals were untimely. It further argued that assignments are not a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the Union failed to establish that the tows in question were the exclusive work of MVOs. The Board found that that the Union’s claims regarding disabled vehicle tows were untimely, that the tows from crime and emergency scenes in question were exclusive MVO work, that the Union did not establish a safety impact resulting from the removal of NYPD decals from trucks, and that the Union’s claim of a safety impact on TEA Level IIIs was not properly before the Board because it was raised for the first time in the Union’s post-hearing brief. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and dismissed in part.

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

Petitioner claimed that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) when it refused to file grievances on her behalf. The Union argued that the petition is time-barred and that it did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that some claims are time-barred and that the remaining claims do not establish that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The City challenged the arbitrability of two grievances alleging that its incentive payments for vaccination against COVID-19 were issued selectively and arbitrarily in violation of various economic agreements, which require uniform and equitable compensation for bargaining unit members. The City argued that there is no nexus between the grievances and the economic agreements because the incentive payments were a targeted effort to achieve a public health goal and were wholly unrelated to wage rates or compensation. The Unions argued that employees received the incentive payments in their paychecks as earnings and therefore relate to the parties’ economic agreements. The Board found that the Unions did not establish the requisite nexus. Accordingly, the City’s petitions challenging arbitrability were granted, and the Union’s requests for arbitration were dismissed.

The Union claimed that the grievant was wrongly demoted

12-306(a)(1) and (3). The City argued that the Union failed to establish a prima

facie case and that, to the extent the Board found a prima facie case, the actions

had proffered a prima facie case of retaliation but that the City established it had a

legitimate business reason for the grievant’s demotion. Accordingly, the petition

The City challenged the arbitrability of the Union’s grievance alleging that the FDNY violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreements and FDNY regulations by placing bargaining unit members on leave without pay for refusing to comply with the City Health Commissioner’s COVID Vaccine Mandate. The City argued that court-enunciated public policy precludes arbitration of the grievance, that vaccination is a qualification of employment, which does not give rise to any arbitrable right, and that there was no nexus between the placement of unvaccinated bargaining unit members on LWOP and the cited provisions of the Agreements and FDNY regulations. The Board found that the portions of the grievance concerning EDE and use of accrued economic benefits was arbitrable, but that the portions of the grievance challenging the placement of unit members on LWOP was not arbitrable. Accordingly, the City’s petition challenging arbitrability was granted in part and the Union’s request for arbitration was granted in part.

Petitioners claimed that the City violated § 12-306(a)(4) and § 12-307 of the NYCCBL by failing to bargain over policies the City unilaterally adopted as a result of the Mayor’s order that all City employees be vaccinated by October 29, 2021. Petitioners argued that the City failed to provide sufficient time to negotiate issues relating to implementation of the Vaccine Mandate set forth in these policies, prior to arbitrary deadlines, in violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. The City argued that it had no obligation to bargain over the implementation of the Vaccine Mandate due to the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It further argued that it had engaged in good faith impact bargaining and that there is no legal requirement that impact be bargained before the implementation of a policy. The Board finds that the City had a duty to bargain over mandatory subjects contained in its policies to implement the Vaccine Mandate and that it failed to do so. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that the DOC violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by wrongfully disciplining the grievant. The City argued that this is not a disciplinary matter and thus is not covered by the agreement’s grievance procedure. The Union argued that this is a disciplinary matter and that the agreement encompasses discipline within the definition of a grievance. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the request for arbitration was granted.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that DOB violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by failing to increase the grievants’ salaries after they were assigned to the Emergency Response Team night shift, consistent with past practice. The City argued that there is no nexus between the grievance and the agreement’s cited provisions because they provide no right to a salary increase. It also argued that past practices are not arbitrable because the agreement’s definition of a grievance does not include claimed violations of a past practice. The Board found that the Union did not establish the requisite nexus and that the parties’ agreement does not allow for the arbitration of past practices. Accordingly, the City’s petition challenging arbitrability was granted, and the Union’s request for arbitration was dismissed.

In UFADBA, 13 OCB2d 15 (BCB 2020), the Board ordered the FDNY to make whole the three most senior Chief Dispatchers for any financial loss resulting from its unilateral rescission of the use of City-owned vehicles for commuting. Here, at the request of the parties, the Board determined issues relating to the make whole remedy. Specifically, the Board ordered the FDNY to make whole all employees serving in the three most senior Chief Dispatcher positions. It determined that the backpay period commenced on the date the City-owned vehicles were returned to the FDNY and continues until such time as an agreement is reached or impasse procedures are exhausted. It also determined an appropriate backpay formula to make all affected Chief Dispatchers whole for the loss of the use of City-owned vehicles.

The Union appealed the Report and Recommendations of an Impasse Panel regarding a dispute with the City over the salary range of Executive Director of Fleet Operations (FD) and Supervisor of Mechanics (Mechanical Equipment) Level III. The Union argued that the Impasse Panel erred in failing to properly consider the nature and duties of the two titles, did not give sufficient weight to the case law cited by the Union, and overemphasized the availability of compensatory time. As a result, the Panel improperly designated the titles as 35-hour positions. The City contended that the Panel properly considered the evidence, testimony, and arguments of the parties, and issued a report that is supported by the record and complies with the criteria set forth in the NYCCBL. The Board affirmed the Report in its entirety and declined to hear oral argument.

The Union claimed that the MBPO violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) when it imposed a fixed lunch hour policy on employees in retaliation for the filing of an overtime compensation grievance. The City argued that the Union failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation. Alternatively, the City argued that it had a legitimate business reason to impose the new policy. The Board found that the Union did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union alleged that the City retaliated against two bargaining unit members whose workplace complaints were discussed at a labor management meeting by giving them more onerous assignments, denying them access to equipment, and subjecting them to greater scrutiny and discipline than other workers. The City argued that the Union did not establish a prima facie case because there was no anti-union animus and the alleged retaliatory actions were not adverse employment actions. The Board found that a prima facie case was not established because the allegedly retaliatory acts began prior to the employer’s knowledge of the Union activity. Accordingly, the Board denied the petition.

The Union filed a petition to add Neighborhood Planners serving in the title Administrative Housing Superintendents to Certification No. 62A-75, the Housing Titles bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added Administrative Housing Superintendents currently in managerial pay plan level I to the Union’s bargaining unit with the exception of certain positions designated managerial and/or confidential.

The Union claimed that DOT violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) when it demoted a Union Shop Steward serving provisionally as a ferry boat Captain and rescinded a practice of paying employees for trainings attended on their day off in retaliation for union activity. The City argued that the Captain was not demoted because of his union activity, but rather for DOT rule violations which led to a loss in confidence in his ability to safely perform his duties. The Board found that the Union established a prima facie case as to both of its claims and that DOT did not establish legitimate business reasons to justify its decision not to pay employees for attendance at a training or for the demotion. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

LEEBA filed a petition to fragment Special Officers and Supervising Special Officers employed at DCAS from a bargaining unit represented by Local 237 that includes Special Officers and Supervising Special Officers at various City agencies and at HHC. LEEBA argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus and additional law enforcement duties and training constituted changed circumstances such that placement of these titles in their current bargaining unit is no longer appropriate. Local 237 and the City argued that there were no new circumstances that warrant the fragmentation of the titles from the existing unit. The Board found the holding of Janus did not change the Board’s long-standing fragmentation standard and that LEEBA’s assertions do not establish changed circumstances warranting fragmentation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION Effective immediately, the Office of the Public Advocate has voluntarily recognized the Organization of Staff Analysts as the bargaining representative of a new bargaining unit, Certification No. 19-22:

Petitioner alleged that the Union violated the NYCCBL by failing to request documents from HHC, verbally attacking him, removing him as a Shop Steward, and failing to explain his removal in writing. In addition, he alleged that HHC violated the NYCCBL by failing to provide the documents he requested. The Union argued that the Board does not have jurisdiction over internal union matters, that the petition was untimely, and that it did not establish a breach of the duty of fair representation. HHC argued that Petitioner lacked standing to allege a breach of its duty to bargain by failing to furnish information and that his document requests fell outside its duty under the NYCCBL. The Board found that verbal criticism of Petitioner’s performance as a Shop Steward, his removal as a Shop Steward, and the failure to explain the reasons for his removal as a Shop Steward are internal union matters over which it does not have jurisdiction. It held that the claim that the Union failed to request documents from HHC was timely but did not establish a breach of the duty of fair representation and that Petitioner lacked standing to assert the failure to bargain claim against HHC.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to adequately represent her during the grievance process regarding a denied detail request, failing to bring her grievance to arbitration, and failing to communicate that it was not bringing her grievance to arbitration. Petitioner also alleged that the Union violated NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(1) by obstructing the grievance process and colluding with DPR to deny her a fair hearing, in addition to denying her access to union meetings and elections. Further, Petitioner alleged that DPR violated § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by failing to grant her detail request, failing to furnish information, obstructing her grievance process, and colluding with the Union. The Union and the City separately argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation, that some of the actions did not occur as alleged, and that none of their actions violated the NYCCBL. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that the Union or DPR violated the NYCCBL with respect to a number of her allegations. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the petition, in part.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to bring his grievance to arbitration and failing to communicate that it was not bringing his grievance to arbitration. Petitioner also alleged that DPR violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by creating a hostile work environment in retaliation for his union activity. The Union and the City separately argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation and that none of their actions violated the NYCCBL. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that the Union or DPR violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Petitioner alleged that the Union violated NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(1) when a Union official insulted and threatened him in a post on a Union Facebook group. Petitioner contended that the post was in retaliation for his participation in efforts to decertify the Union in favor of a rival union. Petitioner argued that the post was coercive and inherently destructive of his rights under the NYCCBL. The Union argued that Petitioner was not engaged in protected activity and failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(1). The Board found that the Union official’s actions did not violate NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(1). Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union claimed that the City and ACS violated NYCCBL §§ 12-306(a)(4) and 12-307(a) when ACS unilaterally implemented staffing and scheduling changes affecting the Youth Development Specialist employees assigned to the Family Court detention rooms. The City argued that the scheduling and staffing changes were a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and that the petition should be dismissed because the Union made no specific factual allegations of a practical impact. The Board found that the changes did not concern a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the petition did not allege facts sufficient to warrant a hearing on practical impact and dismissed the petition in its entirety.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative of the title described below, and the Hospital Technicians bargaining unit has been amended as follows to reflect this addition:

The Union claimed that the City, DPR, and DOT violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by failing to bargain over the use of data obtained via vehicle monitoring technology for disciplinary purposes. The Union further argued that the City failed to bargain over the impact of vehicle monitoring technology on employee privacy. The City argued that the use of vehicle monitoring technology falls within the City’s management rights under NYCCBL § 12-307(b), that this technology does not represent a new basis for discipline, and that the City has an overwhelming interest in using such data to minimize dangers to the safety of employees and the public. The Board ruled that the City was obligated to engage in impact bargaining regarding the use of vehicle monitoring technology for discipline and directed impact bargaining upon the demand of either party. The Board dismissed the Union’s remaining claims.

The Union filed a petition to amend Certification No. 62C-75 to add the title Administrative Public Information Specialist to its Public Information and Health bargaining unit. Based on the parties’ stipulations, the Board added Administrative Public Information Specialists currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit, with the exception of certain positions designated managerial. In addition, the Board designated Administrative Public Information Specialists in managerial pay plan levels III and above managerial.

On January 9, 2022, Local Law 2022/025 was enacted and amends the New York City Collective Bargaining Law (NYCCBL). The law becomes effective on February 8, 2022. The purpose of the amendments were to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. AFSCME. Specifically, the new law eliminates the NYCCBL’s reference to ‘agency fees’ which are no longer required to be paid by non-members. The amendments also state that there are certain services and benefits that public employee unions are not required to provide to non-members, such as representation during investigatory interviews and processing of disciplinary grievances. However, in certain circumstances and with the permission of the union, non-members are allowed to proceed through the grievance process and arbitration without union representation, so long as the non-member pays the costs of arbitration that would otherwise be paid by the union.

The Union filed a petition to add the title Director, Information Services to Certification No. 3-88, the Staff Analysts bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added employees in the title to the bargaining unit, with the exception of certain positions designated managerial and/or confidential.

ILEBA filed a petition to represent the Associate Traffic Enforcement Agent title within the jointly certified Traffic Enforcement bargaining unit, and to replace CWA as one of the jointly certified bargaining representatives or, in the alternative, to fragment the ATEA title from the bargaining unit and represent it in a new bargaining unit. Since the Board has long rejected the "substitution theory" and ILEBA has not shown changed circumstances demonstrating that the Traffic Enforcement bargaining unit is no longer appropriate, the Board dismissed the petition.

NOTICE OF AMENDED CERTIFICATION

Petitioner alleged that NYCHA violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by terminating her in retaliation for having sought union assistance regarding a counseling memorandum and a denied leave request. NYCHA argued that Petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation and that the decision to terminate her was based on legitimate business reasons. The Board found that although Petitioner established a prima facie case of retaliation, NYCHA demonstrated legitimate business reasons for her termination. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Petitioner appealed the Executive Secretary’s dismissal of his petition for untimeliness and failure to state a claim. Petitioner argued that the Union refused to provide him with certain documents in a timely manner without which he could not have known whether it had misled and improperly represented him. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the petition untimely and determined that it did not state a claim, and thus denied the appeal.

The Union alleged that the NYPD violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) by encouraging Union members to cease paying union dues and by distributing materials that discouraged union membership. The City argues that the Union’s claims do not establish conduct that was inherently destructive of important employee rights nor has there been any evidence that there have been any significant repercussions for its members. The Board found that the supervisor’s actions constituted violations of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1). Accordingly, the petition was granted.

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to provide adequate communication or assistance regarding his complaint about being required to work double and triple tours. The Union and the City separately argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union claimed that the City and the DOC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by admonishing a union delegate for emailing the warden, requiring him to submit a written report explaining why he had done so, telling him he had to follow the chain of command to address complaints, threatening him with an administrative transfer, and removing him from a roll call. The City denied that the union delegate had been threatened with an administrative transfer and argued that his removal from roll call and statements ordering him to follow the chain of command were motivated by legitimate business reasons. The Board found that the City and the DOC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) by requiring the union delegate to submit a written report about why he had emailed the warden and threatening him with administrative transfer, and it dismissed all other claims. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

The Union alleged that the NYC Public Advocate violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) by interfering with the collective bargaining relationship between the Union, the City, and the NYPD and by engaging in direct dealing with Union members. The City argues that the Public Advocate is not the employer of the employees in question and therefore has no duty to bargain over legislative proposals or comments made in support of such legislation. It also argues that his actions did not interfere with employees’ rights, nor did his statements constitute direct dealing since he did not make any threatening statements or promise any benefits. The Board found that the Public Advocate’s statements did not rise to the level of direct dealing or an independent claim of interference in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1). Accordingly, the petit

The Union alleged that DEP violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) when a supervisor disparaged the Union and told a unit member that seeking the Union’s assistance with a time sheet issue would be futile, and violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by bringing disciplinary charges against the member in retaliation for assisting the Union in filing an improper practice petition. The City argued that the Union has failed to establish that the supervisor engaged in activity that was inherently destructive of employee rights. It also argued that the Union has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation and that the decision to discipline the member was based on legitimate business reasons. The Board found that the supervisor’s statements were inherently destructive of employee rights and violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1). Further, it found that although the Union established a prima facie case of retaliation, the City proffered legitimate business reasons for the disciplinary charges. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

Petitioner claimed that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) when it refused to represent her in relation to her termination from DSS. The Union and the City argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that the allegations did not state a claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Petitioner alleged that the DOC violated the NYCCBL by failing to bargain over the terms of a remedial consent order and its practical impact on unit members’ safety, workload, and discipline. The City moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it was untimely and because the order did not materially change existing policies and its provisions are not mandatory subjects of bargaining. Further, the City argued the record does not support finding a per se impact on officer safety. The Board found that the petition was timely, that the remedial consent order is not a mandatory subject of bargaining, and that a safety impact could not be determined on the pleadings alone. Accordingly, the Board granted the motion to dismiss as to the decisional bargaining and per se safety impact claims and ordered the City to file an answer regarding the remaining practical impact claims.

The Union claimed that NYCHA’s refusal to bargain over its decision to deny two Union representatives excused paid leave to attend trustee meetings of the Union-run Charles Ensley Foundation represented a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining in violation of NYCCBL §§ 12-306(a)(4) and 12-307(a). NYCHA argued that the Union failed to demonstrate the existence of a past practice on which to base its claim. The Board found that the Union had proven the existence of a past practice of providing two Union representatives excused paid leave to attend Foundation meetings and that NYCHA had made a unilateral change to that practice. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

The Union alleged that the City terminated a Union member in retaliation for filing a grievance and therefore violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3). The City argued that the Union has failed to provide sufficient evidence of anti-union animus to make out a case of retaliation. In the alternative, the City argues that the termination was motivated by legitimate business reasons related to performance. After a hearing, the Board found that the Union established a prima facie case of retaliation, but that the City rebutted the evidence by demonstrating that the decision to terminate was made prior to and not based on the union activity in question. Therefore, the improper practice petition was dismissed.

The Union alleged that the City and DOF violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by refusing to bargain over the introduction and use of GPS-enabled iPads to track field employees’ locations, the potential use of this data to discipline employees, and privacy concerns arising from GPS tracking of off-duty employees. The City argued that the introduction of GPS-enabled iPads to verify the location of field employees falls within the City’s management rights, that there has been no change to terms and conditions of employment because the iPads are an updated version of GPS-enabled tablets already utilized by employees, and that their use does not establish a new basis for discipline. The City also denied that location data is tracked when employees are off duty. The Board found that neither the replacement of previously issued GPS-enabled tablets with iPads nor the use of GPS data to conduct yearly Field Integrity Checks constituted a change to a mandatory subject of bargaining. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to accurately advise him whether he had to report for work, failing to properly represent him after he received a counseling memorandum related to his failure to report for work, and failing to challenge his ultimate termination. The Union and NYCHA separately argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

found that no adverse employment action occurred and, therefore, a prima facie

Petitioner appealed the Executive Secretary’s dismissal of his petition on the grounds that it was precluded by res judicata and collateral estoppel, untimely, and failed to state a claim. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly dismissed the petition and denied the appeal.

The Union alleged that DPR violated NYCCBL §§ 12-306(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) by interfering with the selection of its representatives, directing its staff to file complaints against a Union representative, modifying the location and scheduling of informal conferences and investigatory interviews, and denying certain representatives access to DPR facilities. The City argued that some of the actions did not occur as alleged and that it did not violate the NYCCBL. The Board found that DPR violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) by interfering with the Union’s selection of representatives, violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by modifying the procedure for scheduling investigatory interviews, and dismissed all other claims. Accordingly, the petition is granted in part and denied in part.

The Union alleged that the DOF violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by refusing to bargain over the assignment of duties to Deputy Sheriffs associated with the New York State Bail Reform Law’s Electronic Monitoring Program and the resulting practical impact. The City argued that the assignment of such duties is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. It also argued that any practical impact claim is premature, but to the extent that the Board considers the instant claim as a scope of bargaining petition, the Union failed to establish a practical impact. The Board found that the assignment of Electronic Monitoring Program duties to Deputy Sheriffs was not a mandatory subject of bargaining. Further, it found that the pleadings did not allege facts sufficient to warrant a hearing on practical impact. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed in its entirety.

Petitioners alleged that the DOC violated the NYCCBL by unilaterally implementing the terms of a consent judgment and a use of force directive and failing to negotiate over the practical impact on unit members’ safety, workload, and discipline. In addition, COBA alleged that the DOC engaged in direct dealing and failed to provide requested information. The City argued the directive did not materially change existing policies, that any changes are nonmandatory because they are either managerial prerogatives or required by the consent judgment, and that the record does not support finding a practical impact on uniformed staff. Further, the City denied that it engaged in direct dealing or failed to provide information. After a hearing, the Board found that the Consent Judgment and directive are not mandatory subjects of bargaining, a practical impact on terms and conditions of employment was not demonstrated, and the City did not engage in direct dealing or fail to provide information. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union claimed that the City and the FDNY violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (4), and (5) by unilaterally implementing a procedure known as the 1:12 rule that denied unit members the ability to use their accrued annual leave. Alternatively, if the 1:12 rule were found to be a nonmandatory subject of bargaining, the Union argued that the City was required to bargain over its practical impact on terms and conditions of employment. The City argued that the grant or denial of leave falls within its management rights, that there was no change in policy, that the Union did not establish any practical impact, and that the claim should be deferred to the grievance procedure. The Board found that the 1:12 rule constitutes a mandatory subject of bargaining but that the Union did not meet its burden of establishing a change from existing policy. Having found that the 1:12 rule was a mandatory subject of bargaining, the Board also denied the Union’s request for impact bargaining. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The SBA filed a petition to represent the Environmental Police Officers currently represented by LEEBA. It alleged that its petition was timely pursuant to an exception to the contract bar rule because LEEBA is neither functional nor effectively representing its members. The Board found that the exception for unusual or extraordinary circumstances was not applicable because LEEBA is not defunct and has not abandoned representation of unit members. Accordingly, it dismissed the SBA’s petition as untimely.

Effective immediately, the City Council has voluntarily recognized the Association of Legislative Employees as the bargaining representative of a new bargaining unit, Certification No. 1-21

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by interfering with the submission of grievances, failing to notify her of the status of grievances, and disclosing her personal identifying information in an online post concerning one of the grievances. The Union and the City separately argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The City filed a motion to dismiss the Union’s improper practice petition alleging that the City did not bargain prior to the Board of Correction’s publication of proposed rules that will have a per se safety impact on Correction Officers. The City asserted that the Board of Collective Bargaining lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the Board of Correction’s quasi-legislative duties and that the petition was untimely, failed to state a cause of action, and was premature. The Board found that it has jurisdiction over the dispute and dismissed the petition as premature.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that it violated a DOHMH policy when it failed to pay overtime compensation to two FLSA non-exempt titles. The City asserts that there is no nexus between the grievance and the Agreement. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus. Accordingly, the City’s petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the Union’s request for arbitration was granted.

The Union filed a petition to amend Certification No. 45-71, the Board of Elections bargaining unit, to add the title Senior Administrator (BOE). The City argued that employees in the title were managerial and/or confidential. The Board found that the evidence established that the employees are eligible for collective bargaining. Accordingly, the Board added the title to the Union’s bargaining unit.

The Union claimed that DEP violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) when it terminated an employee in retaliation for filing an out-of-title grievance. The City argued that the employee was not terminated because of his union activity but because he sent a threatening e-mail to his supervisor and because of his work performance, both of which constitute legitimate business reasons. The Board found that the Union failed to establish a prima facie claim of retaliation. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

The Union filed an improper practice petition alleging that NYCHA failed to bargain in good faith regarding a change in the supervisory structure for Community Associates and ending a practice of allowing members to take excused paid leave when attending meetings of a Union foundation, and that the latter action discriminated against bargaining unit members. NYCHA asserted that the claims were time-barred, that it was not required to bargain on those issues, that the supervision issue was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, that it did not discriminate or retaliate against employees when it denied the leave requests, and that there was no change to its excused leave policy. The Board found that the supervision issue was time-barred and denied the petition as to that claim. The Board further found that the excused leave issue was timely and ordered a hearing on the Union’s claim that there existed a past practice of approving Union representatives’ requests for excused leave to attend Foundation meetings.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that it violated a DOC order when it denied Grievant release time for physical therapy appointments in connection with a workers’ compensation incident. The City asserts that there is no nexus between the grievance and the DOC order, since determinations regarding eligibility for release time are made by the DOC’s Health Management Division and are final and binding. The City also argued that the Union’s requested remedy of compensatory time was inappropriate because it is outside of an arbitrator’s authority to order such a remedy. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus between its claim and the DOC order and that the issue of remedy was for the arbitrator to determine. Accordingly, the City’s petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the Union’s request for arbitration was granted.

CWA sought to add the title Assistant Director, Hospitals, and OSA sought to add the title Associate Director, Hospitals, to their respective bargaining units. HHC argued that the titles are managerial and/or confidential and do not share a community of interest with titles in either bargaining unit. The Board found that, with certain exceptions, the employees in these titles are eligible for collective bargaining. As the titles share a community of interest with the existing bargaining units, the Board accreted the Assistant Director title to CWA’s bargaining unit and the Associate Director title to OSA’s bargaining unit.

The Union filed a petition to add several titles, including Computer Systems Manager and Computer Operations Manager, to Certification No. 46D-75, the Accounting and EDP bargaining unit. Following an interim decision based on a stipulation regarding other titles, the parties reached a settlement regarding the Computer Systems Manager and Computer Operations Manager titles. Based on their second stipulation, the Board added employees currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit, except certain positions designated managerial and/or confidential. In addition, the Board designated employees in managerial pay plan levels III and above managerial.

The Union filed a petition to add the title Assistant Commissioner (FD) to Certification No. 55-70, the Supervisor of Mechanics (M.E.) bargaining unit. The parties stipulated that the Assistant Commissioner (FD) in the Division of Fleet Operations would be moved to a newly created title of Executive Director of Fleet Operations (FD), which is eligible for collective bargaining. Accordingly, the Board added the Executive Director of Fleet Operations (FD) title to the bargaining unit.

The Union claimed that the FDNY violated § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) of the NYCCBL when it unilaterally discontinued its practice of allowing the three most senior employees in the title Supervising Fire Alarm Dispatchers Level II to use a City-owned vehicle for commuting to and from work. The City argued that no such past practice exists and that it has the managerial right to make changes regarding the use or selection of equipment. It further argued that the public policy of addressing climate change outweighs the minimal economic impact to the employees at issue. The Board found that authorizing the use of agency vehicles for the purpose of commuting is an economic benefit and that the failure to bargain with the Union over the rescission of the vehicles was an improper practice. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that it violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and Personnel Service Bulletins when it denied Grievant the right to return to his prior agency in his prior title after the agency to which he transferred terminated him during his probationary period. The City argued that the matter is not arbitrable because there is no nexus to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and because the Personnel Service Bulletins at issue were derived from the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations, which are not arbitrable. The Board found a nexus to one of the cited Personnel Service Bulletins, which included procedures not found in the Personnel Rules and, therefore, was arbitrable under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Board granted, in part, and denied, in part, the City's petition challenging arbitrability.

The Union alleged that NYCHA violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a) (4) and (5) by unilaterally rescinding its practice of granting two hours of excused time in December of each year. NYCHA argued that it did not violate the NYCCBL because it did not rescind the practice but instead asked that employees forego taking the excused time. The Board found that NYCHA unilaterally rescinded the practice in violation of NYCCBL § 12- 306(a) (1) and (4) but did not violate § 12-306(a)(5) because the agreement between the parties was not in status quo. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

DC 37 filed a petition seeking to add Cyber Security Analyst to its Accounting and EDP bargaining unit. The Board added the title

The Union filed a petition to add the title Deputy Assistant Director (CCRB) to Certification No. 3-88, the Staff Analyst bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added the title Deputy Assistant Director (CCRB) (Non-Managerial) to the unit and designated certain Deputy Assistant Directors (CCRB) managerial.

IUOE Local 211 filed a petition to represent the Inspectors (Highway & Sewers) bargaining unit, represented by LEEBA. As the petition was timely and supported by a sufficient showing of interest, the Board conducted an election to ascertain the employees’ wishes as to their union representation. Based on the results of the election, the Board dismissed IUOE Local 211’s petition.

The City challenged the arbitrability of two grievances alleging that the NYPD wrongfully disciplined Grievants by transferring them to new work locations and placing them on different shifts. The City argued that the Union did not demonstrate that a substantial issue exists as to whether Grievants’ transfers were for disciplinary purposes. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus because it raised a substantial question as to whether the transfers were disciplinary in nature. Accordingly, the City’s petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the Union’s requests for arbitration were granted.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to notify him of the status of his grievance and failing to advance the grievance. The Union argued that Petitioner’s claims were untimely, that it decided not to further pursue the grievance because it was not meritorious, and that its failure to communicate with Petitioner was, at most, mere negligence. The Board held that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The UFA and UFOA filed petitions alleging that the FDNY violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) and § 12-307(a) by refusing to bargain over the assignment of their members to Counter-Terrorism Task Forces and its impact on safety and workload. The City argued that the petitions are untimely, that the alleged change does not involve mandatory subjects of bargaining, and that the Unions failed to establish an impact on safety or workload. The Board found that most of the unilateral change claims are untimely and that the timely claims do not concern mandatory subjects of bargaining. It further found a per se safety impact, but not a practical impact on workload. The Board therefore ordered impact bargaining over safety and dismissed the Unions’ remaining claims.

The City challenged the arbitrability of two grievances alleging that it violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by failing to provide due process rights when it terminated Grievants. The City argued that both Grievants’ probationary periods had been extended pursuant to the Personnel Rules and that, therefore, there is no nexus between the terminations and the collective bargaining agreement. Since the collective bargaining agreement excludes the Personnel Rules from the scope of arbitration, the Board found that there is no nexus between the Union’s claim and the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the City’s petitions challenging arbitrability were granted, and the Union’s requests for arbitration were denied.

Petitioner appealed the Executive Secretary’s dismissal of his petition for untimeliness because none of the claims raised occurred within four months of its filing date. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the petition untimely, rejected Petitioner’s allegations against the respondents as barred by res judicata, and denied the appeal.

The  Union  and  a  public  employee  claimed  that  HHC violated NYCCBL  §  12-306(a)(l)  and  (3)  when  it  terminated  the  employee  in retaliation or her participation in a union organizing campaign.   HHC argued that the employee does not have standing to assert a violation of the NYCCBL since she was a managerial  employee  at the time of her termination.   It further argued  that her termination was not improperly motivated and that 
she was instead terminated due to poor work performance and productivity.  The Board found that Petitioners established a prima facie claim of retaliation.  The Board further found that HHC's proffered legitimate business reasons for the employee's  termination  were pretext for retaliation.  Accordingly, the petition was granted.

The Union alleged that the City violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by twice filing disciplinary charges against one of its members in retaliation for filing a grievance and a workplace violence complaint. The City argued that some of the claims are untimely, that the Union has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and that DEP had a legitimate business reason for its actions. The Board found that some of the claims are untimely and, as to the timely claim, that the City rebutted the Union’s prima facie case. Accordingly, the Board found that the City did not violate the NYCCBL, and the petition is dismissed.

The DOC challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that the City violated the DOC’s rules regarding the housing of inmates. It argued the grievance fails to establish a nexus with the collective bargaining agreement and that allowing arbitration would interfere with the City’s management right to classify inmates, in violation of public policy. The Board found that arbitration would not violate public policy and that there is a nexus to the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the request for arbitration was granted.

Petitioner appealed the Determination of the Executive Secretary dismissing his petition as untimely. The petition alleged that the Union violated its duty of fair representation by failing to negotiate certain benefits in 2015. Petitioner argued that the petition was timely because he was continuously trying to resolve the matter with the Union, had only recently learned that the Board was the proper forum for his complaint, and had been continuously harmed by the Union’s actions. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the charges in the petition untimely and denied the appeal.

Petitioner claimed that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) when it failed to properly represent him regarding two grievances alleging that he was performing out-of-title work. The Union and the City separately argued that one of Petitioner’s claims is time-barred and that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation in regard to either grievance. The Board found that Petitioner’s allegation regarding the first grievance was untimely and that his timely allegation regarding the second grievance did not establish that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Petitioner claimed that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) when it failed to properly represent him in relation to his separation of service from NYCHA. The Union and the City separately argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that the allegations did not state a claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

The Union alleged that the Department of Homeless Services violated NYCCBL §§ 12-305, 12-306(a)(1) and (a)(4) by unilaterally changing the work schedule of day-shift Laborers to include weekend days, which affected available overtime. The City argued that it did not alter how overtime is assigned or distributed and that schedule changes are within its managerial discretion; thus, there is no duty to bargain. The Board found that the City did not violate the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the improper practice petition.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to file a grievance on his behalf. The City argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation as Petitioner was a probationary employee with limited rights. The Board found that Petitioner’s claim failed to establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the improper practice petition.

The issue of whether a specified public employee has managerial and/or confidential status was referred to this Board after being raised in an improper practice petition before the Board of Collective Bargaining. After a review of the evidence, the Board found that HHC did not overcome the presumption that the employee was eligible for collective bargaining at the time of her termination and referred the matter back to the Board of Collective Bargaining.

HHC challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that the Grievant was subjected to sexual harassment. It argued there was no nexus with the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The Board found that there is a nexus to the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the request for arbitration was granted.

 Petitioner appealed the Executive Secretary’s dismissal of his petition as untimely because it was filed over four years after the Union’s alleged failure to raise a timeliness defense to the City’s petition challenging arbitrability. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the petition untimely, rejected Petitioner’s allegations against the Union, and denied the appeal.

The Union argued that the DOC unilaterally changed its uniform policy after some of its members had purchased uniform items that are now not permissible to wear at work. The City argued that determining the uniform policy is a managerial right under NYCCBL § 12-307(b) and that the Union’s claims of practical impact are vague and speculative. The Board found that the determination of required uniforms is a managerial prerogative. However, the Board found that to the extent some employees purchased cargo pants that they can no longer wear in reliance on the prior uniform policy, the mid-term change impacted their uniform allowance, a mandatory subject of bargaining. Accordingly, the petition was granted, in part, and denied, in part.

The Union claimed that the City violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by not providing fire alarm dispatchers who were transferred to a new facility with a full kitchen containing a stovetop oven and dishwasher, contrary to established past practice, and by requiring them to sign a waiver of liability in order to use the facility’s gym when off duty. The City argued that its actions were within its management rights, that there was no change to past practice, that it satisfied any arguable duty to bargain regarding a full kitchen, and that the City’s interest in safety outweighed the employees’ interest in comfort. The Board found that the absence of a full kitchen and the requirement that employees sign a waiver to use the gym when off duty were not changes from existing policy or practice and that the demand for a full kitchen was not a mandatory subject of bargaining. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that it violated a DOC regulation when it failed to credit Grievant for compensatory time for the period of time between the end of his disciplinary suspension and the date he was permitted to return to work. The City argued that the grievance concerns issues related to Grievant’s suspension, which is a disciplinary matter that is specifically excluded from the definition of a grievance. The Union argued that it is not seeking to arbitrate a disciplinary matter and that it established the requisite nexus between its claim and the cited regulation. The Board found that the grievance did not concern a disciplinary matter and that the Union established the requisite nexus. Accordingly, the City’s petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the Union’s request for arbitration was granted.

The Union alleged that HHC failed to bargain over the impact of the terms and conditions of employment for its unit members effected by new State regulations. HHC argued that the claims are untimely and that, even if they are determined to be timely, implementation of State regulations is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Board found a practical impact because the unit members were responsible for additional fees arising from compliance with the new regulations. The Board therefore ordered impact bargaining over fees and dismissed the Union’s remaining claims.

OSA and DC 37 sought to represent the MetroPlus Care Coordinator and MetroPlus Utilization Review/Management Coordinator titles and consented to an election. Based on the results of the election, the Board added the titles to OSA’s Staff Analysts bargaining unit, Certification No. 3-88.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized District Council 37, as the bargaining representative of the title described below, and the Social Services bargaining unit, Certification No. 37-78, has been amended as follows to reflect this addition: Social Worker Mental Health Service Corps (MHSC) (Title Code No. 526110)

Petitioner appealed the Determination of the Executive Secretary dismissing his improper practice petition as untimely. The Board determined that additional information was needed and directed the Union and HHC to answer the petition.

The City argued that the Union bargained in bad faith during negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement for Environmental Police Officers. Specifically, the City alleged that the Union filed for impasse prematurely, demanded bargaining over a prohibited subject of bargaining, refused to clarify its demands, and refused to consider the City’s proposals. The Union argued that the City understood that it was seeking wage increases consistent with a uniformed pattern and that the Union sought to significantly narrow the pay gap between its members and NYPD police officers. The Union further argued that it considered and rejected the City’s proposals and that the City’s refusal to vary from the civilian pattern justified its requests for impasse. The Union also denied that it sought to bargain over a prohibited subject of bargaining. The Board found that the Union did not breach its duty to bargain in good faith. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

The City claimed that the Union failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement for Sanitation Enforcement Agents. Specifically, the City alleged that the Union filed for impasse after two days of negotiations, demanded bargaining over a prohibited subject of bargaining, refused to clarify its demands, and refused to consider the City’s proposals. The Union argued that the City understood that it was seeking wage increases consistent with a uniformed pattern that would narrow the pay gap between its members and Sanitation Workers assigned as sanitation police. The Union further argued that it considered and rejected the City’s proposals and that the City’s refusal to diverge from the civilian pattern justified its impasse requests. The Union also denied that it sought to bargain over a prohibited subject of bargaining. The Board found that the Union did not violate its duty to bargain in good faith. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

The Union filed an improper practice petition that alleged that the City and DEP violated the NYCCBL. After the Union failed to appear at two conferences and failed to provide an explanation for its absence at the second one, the City filed a motion to dismiss the improper practice petition. The Union did not respond. The Board found that the Union failed to prosecute this matter and dismissed the petition.

The City alleged that the PBA violated NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(2) and (c)(1) when it refused to bargain in good faith over health benefits during negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement. The PBA filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the petition, that the petition is untimely and moot, and that the City waived its right to the relief it seeks. The City opposed the dismissal of the petition. The Board determined that it had jurisdiction over the petition, which was timely filed. It further found that the City’s claim was neither moot nor waived. Accordingly, the motion was denied.

The City alleged that the PBA breached its duty to bargain in good faith, in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(2), (c)(2), and (c)(3), by its efforts to prevent the City’s representative from serving on an interest arbitration panel. The PBA filed a motion to dismiss the City’s petition, arguing that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the petition, that the petition lacks merit because the filing of a lawsuit is not an improper practice, and that the same issues have been presented to the New York State Supreme Court. The City opposed the dismissal of the petition, arguing that that the Board has jurisdiction over its claims, which concern the totality of the Union’s conduct and not simply the filing of the lawsuit. The City also argued that the lawsuit is frivolous and therefore not afforded protection under the law, and that the legal issues in the petition are distinct from those in the lawsuit. The Board found that it has jurisdiction to consider the claims, but that the City’s allegations concerning the Union’s actions did not state a claim of a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted, and the petition was dismissed.

Petitioner appealed the Determination of the Executive Secretary of the Board of Collective Bargaining. The Executive Secretary dismissed the petition as untimely because it alleged violations that occurred more than four months prior to the filing. Petitioner argued that the petition was timely because it was filed within four months of his receipt of an arbitration award denying his grievances. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the charges in the petition untimely and denied the appeal.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) when it failed to properly represent him after DSNY involuntarily reassigned him to a different shift. The Union and the City separately argued that some of the claims are untimely and that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner’s timely allegations did not establish that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Water Treatment Plant Operator, Levels I, II, and III

Petitioners challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that the agency wrongfully disciplined Grievant by suspending him. Petitioners argued that the matter is not arbitrable because Grievant was suspended while on probation pursuant to a stipulation that waived any right of appeal or remedy under the contractual grievance procedure. The Union argued that the grievance is arbitrable because the stipulation allowed for a single suspension during the probationary period, not multiple suspensions. The Board found that Grievant’s right to arbitration was expressly waived in the stipulation. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was granted, and the request for arbitration was denied.

Petitioner appealed the Executive Secretary’s dismissal of his petition for failure to allege facts sufficient to establish a cause of action under the NYCCBL. Petitioner argued that Respondent violated the NYCCBL and that the Office of Collective Bargaining and the Board of Certification failed to follow its rules. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the allegations in the petition insufficient to establish a cause of action. Accordingly, it affirmed the dismissal of the petition and denied the appeal.

The Union alleged that the Department of Consumer Affairs violated NYCCBL §12-306(a)(1) and (3) by issuing disciplinary charges to an employee in retaliation for filing a grievance. The City argues that the Union has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation and that the decision to discipline the employee was based on a legitimate business reason. The Board found that the Union produced prima facie evidence of retaliation but that the City refuted the evidence of animus and provided a legitimate business reason for its actions. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the improper practice petition.

Clinical Documentation Specialist, Levels I and II

The Union alleged that the FDNY violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by failing to negotiate over a new requirement that employees who volunteer for overtime must work the shift, find a replacement, or lose their ability to exchange shifts for 90 days. The Union also alleged that the FDNY failed to negotiate over a change in employees’ ability to exchange shifts if they call in sick for an overtime shift. The City argued that the new requirement was intended to reduce understaffing caused by employees using sick leave on days they were scheduled to work overtime, that its actions are within its discretion, and therefore the new requirement is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Board found that the portion of the undisputed change relating to the distribution of overtime is a mandatory subject of bargaining but the portion relating to the City’s decision to suspend mutuals is not. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

The Union alleged that the City and the NYPD violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(l), (4), and (5) by unilaterally installing and refusing to bargain over cameras in the work area of its Crime Scene Unit. It argued that the unilateral act of videotaping its members in the workplace bears a direct and significant relationship to their working conditions. The City argued that the installation of cameras is not a mandatory subject of bargaining because it is essential to the NYPD’s core mission, that there is a past practice of having cameras in work areas, and that any change in that practice was de minimis. The Board found that the cameras at issue are integral to the NYPD’s core mission of securing evidence and, therefore, are not a subject of mandatory bargaining. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

NYCHA challenged the arbitrability of the Union’s grievance alleging that NYCHA failed to provide Grievants with performance evaluations and tasks and standards. It argued that the grievance has no nexus to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement because neither the collective bargaining agreement nor NYCHA’s Human Resources Manual requires the issuance of performance evaluations or tasks and standards. The Board found that there is a nexus between the Union’s claim and the collective bargaining agreement and Human Resources Manual. Accordingly, NYCHA’s petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the Union’s request for arbitration was granted.

Petitioner filed an improper practice petition alleging that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to properly assist her in getting an explanation for discrepancies in her paycheck. Respondents argued that Petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner did not establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Petitioner claimed that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) when it failed to properly represent him in relation to his separation of service from the NYPD. The Union and the City argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that the allegations did not state a claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to file a grievance on her behalf following her termination. The Union and NYCHA argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation as Petitioner was a probationary employee with limited disciplinary rights under the collective bargaining agreement. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union filed a Request for Appointment of an Impasse Panel to resolve disputes concerning disciplinary guidelines for violations of use of force regulations. The City objected to the appointment of an impasse panel, arguing that the issues that the Union seeks to have determined are not mandatory subjects of bargaining. The City also argued that the guidelines represent only proposed penalty ranges, that they are required by a Consent Judgment, and that an employer has the prerogative to expand or retract a supervisor’s authority without bargaining. The Board found certain demands to be nonmandatory and other demands mandatory. Accordingly, bargaining was ordered over the mandatory portions of the demands.

Petitioner filed an improper practice petition alleging that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to properly assist him concerning a transfer request and refusing to provide him with the employer’s written rule regarding transfers. Respondents argued that Petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner did not establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union filed a petition to add the title Health Service Manager to Certification No. 3-88, the Staff Analyst bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added the title Health Service Manager (Non-Managerial) to the unit and designated certain Health Service Managers managerial.

Petitioners alleged that HHC terminated an employee in retaliation for her participation in a union organizing campaign in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3). In its pleadings, HHC requested dismissal of the petition on the grounds that neither the Union nor the employee has standing to file the instant claim. Petitioners argue that both a public employee and a public employee organization have standing to file petitions. The Board found that the Union has standing and that it need not determine the employee’s standing at this time. Therefore, we decline to dismiss the petition and refer the matter to the Trial Examiner for further processing.

The Union alleged that the NYPD violated NYCCBL § 12- 306(a)(1) when a NYPD supervisor directed a unit member not to speak to his shop steward and attempted to physically prevent him from doing so, threatened to change a unit member’s shift because he called the Union and stated that seeking the Union’s assistance would be futile, and initially refused to permit a Union representative to meet with unit members. The City argued that the Union did not establish that the supervisor engaged in activity that was inherently destructive of employee rights under NYCCBL § 12-305. The Board found that the supervisor’s conduct in two of the alleged incidents constituted violations of NYCCBL § 12- 306(a)(1), but that the third incident did not rise to the level of inherently destructive conduct. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

Based on the results of an election, the Board amended DC 37’s Clerical bargaining unit, Certification No. 46C-75, to add the title Patient Representative.

The Union sought to add the following titles to its bargaining unit: Deputy Director of Tenant and Community Affairs, Deputy Director of Social and Community Affairs, Director of Tenant and Community Affairs, Assistant Director of Intergroup Relations, and Director of Social and Community Services. NYCHA argued that the titles are either vacant or excluded from collective bargaining because they are managerial and/or confidential. The Board dismissed the petition as to the vacant titles. However, the Board found the non-vacant titles, Director of Tenant and Community Affairs and Assistant Director of Intergroup Relations, eligible for collective bargaining and added them to the bargaining unit.

We are pleased to announce that OCB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure have been amended.  Click here for a copy of the amended version of the Rules.  Click here for a practice advisory relating to two new provisions.

The new rules are effective Friday, November 23, 2018.

OCB will be hosting a practice and procedure seminar that will cover the new rules, in addition to other elements of practice before the agency, on December 7, 2018 from 9:30 – 12:30.  Please email Zolanny Valerio at zvalerio@ocb.nyc.gov to reserve a seat.

Petitioner alleged that the Police Department violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (4), and (5) by unilaterally promulgating Operations Order 54, which provides that officers on Modified Assignment may not earn overtime compensation. The City argues that it has no duty to bargain because the Operations Order was issued pursuant to the Police Commissioner’s exclusive authority over discipline. The Board found that the Police Department violated the NYCCBL because the Operations Order pertains to the distribution of overtime, which is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Therefore, the improper practice petition was granted.

Petitioner claimed that DCAS violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) when it transferred him to another unit, resulting in a significant loss of overtime earnings, in retaliation for his complaints regarding his workplace. The City argued that Petitioner was transferred at his request and that it had legitimate business reasons to assign him to the new location because it needed to fill a vacancy and because the transfer resolved a conflict between Petitioner and his supervisor. The Board found that Petitioner established a prima facie claim of retaliation and that the City’s purported business reasons for transferring him were pretextual. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

The Union alleged that the FDNY violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by retaliating against two EMS Lieutenants for engaging in protected union activity and that its actions independently violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1). The City maintained that there is no evidence that protected activity was a motivating factor in the FDNY’s decisions and that the FDNY’s actions were taken for legitimate business reasons. The Board found that the FDNY did not violate the NYCCBL by formally disciplining one Lieutenant but that additional actions were taken in retaliation for his union activity. In addition, the FDNY independently violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) by conditioning his disciplinary penalty on the withdrawal of pending statutory and contractual claims. Regarding the other Lieutenant, the Board found that the FDNY retaliated against him for his union activity when it authorized an employee who had threatened him to work at the same station, but not when it temporarily transferred him to another station. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

Petitioner filed a pro se verified improper practice petition alleging the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of § 12-306(b) (3) of the NYCCBL by failing to adequately represent her in her claim that she was wrongfully terminated. Respondents argued that the petition is untimely. Respondents further argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation as the Petitioner’s title does not have statutory due process rights that would allow her to grieve her termination. The Board found that some of the Petitioner’s claims as to the Union are timely but the claims against the City are untimely. The Board held that the Union did not breach the duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Petitioner alleged that Respondents violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by terminating him in retaliation for engaging in union activity. The City argued that Petitioner’s claims were untimely, that he was terminated for violating a last chance agreement, and that the termination was not motivated by anti-union animus. The Board found the claim timely. However, Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union alleged that the DOC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) when it unilaterally established new rules pertaining to promotion from the competitive civil service position of Correction Officer to the civil service position of Correction Captain. The City argued that that there has been no substantive change to the way in which the DOC evaluates and considers Correction Officers for promotion to Captain because it has always considered the employee’s past discipline and Use of Force history. It further argued that, to the extent the Board did find a change, any change was de minimis and not a mandatory subject of bargaining. Finally, the City argued that bargaining over the subject was precluded by public policy, because any change was made as a result of a federal court consent decree. The Board found that the DOC did not make a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

The Union filed a petition to add the titles Budget Analyst (IBO) and Budget Analyst (Comptroller). Based on a stipulation, the Board added the title Budget Analyst (Comptroller) to Certification No. 3-88, the Staff Analyst bargaining unit, with the exception of one position designated confidential. In addition, the Board designated the title Budget Analyst (IBO) confidential.

DC 37 sought to add the title Crime Analyst to Certification No. 46D-75, the Accounting and EDP bargaining unit. The Board added the title to the bargaining unit.

OSA petitioned to add the title Patient Representative to its Staff Analyst bargaining unit. DC 37 intervened and sought to add the title to its Clerical bargaining unit. HHC argued that Patient Representatives are excluded from collective bargaining because they are managerial and/or confidential under Taylor Law § 201.7(a) and in the alternative, HHC Act § 7385(11). The Board found that the Patient Representative title is eligible for collective bargaining and that either bargaining unit is appropriate. The Board directed an election to ascertain the wishes of the employees as to their union representative.

The Union filed a petition seeking to add the title Administrative Fire Protection Inspector to Certification No. 4-2003, the Emergency Medical Services bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added employees in the title currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit and designated employees in managerial pay plan levels III and above managerial and/or confidential, with the exception of four positions that are eligible for collective bargaining.

The Union filed petitions to add the titles Administrative Graphic Artist, Administrative Space Analyst, Emergency Preparedness Manager, Emergency Preparedness Specialist, and Administrative Horticulturalist to Certification No. 26-78, the Engineering and Scientific bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added Administrative Graphic Artists, Administrative Space Analysts, and Administrative Horticulturalists currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit, with the exception of certain positions designated managerial and/or confidential. In addition, the Board designated Administrative Graphic Artists, Administrative Space Analysts, and Administrative Horticulturalists in managerial pay plan levels III and above, and all employees in the titles Emergency Preparedness Manager and Emergency Preparedness Specialist, managerial and/or confidential and, therefore, excluded from collective bargaining.

OSA filed a petition seeking to add the title Administrative Director of Resident Child Care to Certification No. 3-88, the Staff Analyst bargaining unit. DC 37 intervened, seeking to add the title to Certificate No. 37-78, the Social Services bargaining unit. OSA subsequently withdrew interest in the title. Based on a stipulation by DC 37 and the City, the Board added employees in the title currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the Social Services bargaining unit and designated employees in managerial pay plan levels III and above managerial and/or confidential, with the exception of one position currently that is eligible for collective bargaining.

The Union filed a petition to add the titles Administrative Assessor and Administrative Real Property Manager to Certification No. 46K-75, the Real Estate bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added Administrative Real Property Managers currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit, with the exception of certain positions designated managerial and/or confidential. In addition, the Board designated Administrative Real Property Managers in managerial pay plan levels III and above, and all employees in the title Administrative Assessor, managerial and/or confidential and, therefore, excluded from collective bargaining.

The Union filed petitions to add the titles Administrative Accountant, Administrative Business Promotion Coordinator, Administrative Retirement Benefits Specialist, Administrative Tax Auditor, Computer Operations Manager, Computer Systems Manager, Telecommunications Manager, and Administrative Management Auditor to Certification No. 46D-75, the Accounting and EDP bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation regarding all the titles except for Computer Operations Manager and Computer Systems Manager, the Board added employees currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit, with the exception of certain positions designated managerial and/or confidential. In addition, the Board designated employees in managerial pay plan levels III and above managerial, with the exception of two positions that are eligible for collective bargaining.

The Union filed a petition to add the titles Administrative Public Health Nurse and Administrative Public Health Sanitarian to Certificate No. 28-78, the Health Services bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added employees in the titles currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit, with the exception of certain positions designated managerial and/or confidential. In addition, the Board designated employees in managerial pay plan levels III and above managerial and/or confidential and, therefore, excluded from collective bargaining.

The Union filed a petition to add the titles Administrative Parks and Recreation Manager and Manager of Radio Repair Operations to Certificate No. 38A-78, the Blue Collar bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added employees in the titles currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit, with the exception of one Manager of Radio Repair Operations position, which is designated managerial. In addition, the Board designated employees in the titles in managerial pay plan levels III and above managerial and, therefore, excluded from collective bargaining.

The Union filed petitions to add the titles Administrative Claim Examiner, Administrative Director of Social Services, Administrative Investigator, and Administrative Contract Specialist to Certification No. 37-78, the Social Services bargaining unit. Based on a stipulation, the Board added employees in the titles currently in managerial pay plan levels I and II to the bargaining unit, with the exception of certain positions designated managerial and/or confidential. In addition, the Board designated employees in managerial pay plan levels III and above managerial and/or confidential, with the exception of three positions that are eligible for collective bargaining and added to the unit.

Certification - Operational Analysis - OCB

OCB Proposed Amendment of Rules of Practice and Procedure - Preliminarily Certified - 6.25.18

Certification---Legal-Analysis---OCB-1

The Union alleged that the DOC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by changing the role of seniority in awarding job assignments within a command by requiring the consideration of use of force incidents over the prior five years and by requiring training for certain posts that many experienced COs lack. The Union further alleged that the DOC unilaterally added a review of a CO’s current assignment to a Special Assignment Post after the CO is involved in a use of force incident. The City argued that the petition should be dismissed because determining qualifications and required training for an assignment are managerial prerogatives. The City further argued that the role of seniority in awarding assignments has not changed, there are no new training prerequisites, and any changes are de minimis. After a hearing, the Board found that the DOC had not changed the role of seniority, use of force history, or training in the awarding of job assignments and that the changes at issue were managerial prerogatives. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that it violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by failing to place Administrative Staff Analysts into the Union’s bargaining unit. The City argued that the Union lacks standing to challenge the placement of managerial employees and that there is no nexus between the grievance and the cited contractual provisions as to employees hired as managers. The Board found that that the Union established the requisite nexus since the parties had negotiated a dispute resolution procedure regarding the placement of Administrative Staff Analysts not designated managerial or confidential by the Board of Certification. Accordingly, it denied the City’s petition challenging arbitrability and granted the Union’s request for arbitration.

The Union claimed that the FDNY violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) when it removed a Union official from its Ceremonial Unit in retaliation for his testimony at a meeting of the State Emergency Medical Services Council. The City argued that the official’s testimony at the meeting did not constitute protected union activity. It further argued that he was not removed from the Ceremonial Unit for the ideas he expressed at the meeting, but because of the language he used in expressing these ideas, which violated the Ceremonial Unit’s code of conduct. Therefore, the City contends that it had a legitimate business reason for its action. The Board found that the Union official’s testimony constituted protected union activity and that the FDNY’s proffered legitimate business reason for removing him from the Ceremonial Unit based on his testimony was pretext for retaliation. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

The Union alleged that the Taxi and Limousine Commission violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) when it discontinued the enforcement of "Dollar Vans" in a joint operation with the NYPD. It further alleged that such change required the City to bargain over the resulting practical safety impact on its unit members. The City argued that the Union failed to demonstrate a substantive change in how unit members perform enforcement duties regarding Dollar Vans. It also asserted that the Union has not demonstrated any practical safety impact resulting from the alleged change. After a hearing, the Board found that the City did not have an obligation to bargain over the decrease in joint NYPD Dollar Van enforcement operations. Further, the record does not establish a practical safety impact on unit members. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union alleged that the City and the NYPD violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(l), ( 4), and (5) when it unilaterally implemented changes to the performance evaluation process for Police Officers. The City argued that it had no duty to bargain, that the NYPD did not modify the existing performance evaluation procedures, and that to the extent that it did, the changes were de minimis. The Board found that certain changes were not bargainable because they were incidental to the transition from a paper to an electronic performance review process or did not constitute a change from an existing policy. However, the Board found that the NYPD unilaterally changed a mandatory subject of bargaining by increasing the frequency by which certain Police Officers were evaluated and by introducing a requirement that all Police Officers electronically accept or appeal their quarterly performance evaluations. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

HHC challenged the arbitrability of grievances alleging that it wrongfully terminated two employees. HHC argued that the dispute pertains to the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the HHC, and is excluded from the collective bargaining agreement’s grievance and arbitration process. HHC also argued that the employees were probationary and that there is no nexus between the termination of probationary employees and the collective bargaining agreement. The Board found that a nexus exists between the subject matter of the grievance and the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the petition was denied, and the request for arbitration was granted.

he City of New York sought to amend the DC 37’s Certification No. 37-78, the Social Services bargaining unit, to add Youth Development Specialist and Associate Youth Development Specialist and delete Juvenile Counselor and Associate Juvenile Counselor to reflect the reclassification of these titles. The Board added the Youth Development Specialist titles to DC 37’s bargaining unit and held that the Juvenile Counselor titles will be deleted when vacant.

LEEBA filed a petition to represent Special Officer titles in a new bargaining unit. LEEBA argued that Special Officers should be fragmented from their current bargaining unit because changes to the organization of the Special Officers’ command structure, training, job responsibilities, and duties make their current placement no longer appropriate. Respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed because LEEBA has not presented sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to demonstrate that the Special Officers’ bargaining unit is no longer appropriate. The Board found that LEEBA did not proffer sufficient evidence of changed circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the Board’s previous holdings that placement of the Special Officers in their existing bargaining unit is appropriate. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

In UFT, 7 OCB2d 12 (BCB 2014), the Board found that the City’s implementation of a weekly cap on Hearing Officers’ work hours violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (4), and (5). In this interim order, the Board adopted eligibility criteria to determine which Hearing Officers suffered a loss as a result of the improper practice and a backpay formula to reasonably approximate the hours they would have worked but for the violation of the NYCCBL. The Board also ordered further proceedings to allow the parties to present additional evidence regarding potential exceptions to the eligibility criteria and the calculation of net backpay.

The Union alleged that the DOC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (4), and (5) by hiring a private company to provide training that was historically performed by its bargaining unit without prior bargaining. The Union further alleged that the training at issue and the use of a weapon not previously used by the DOC had safety impacts and created new risks of discipline for its members. The City argued that the petition should be dismissed as moot since the DOC no longer retains the company or uses the weapon. The City further argues that the Union has not demonstrated that the training at issue was exclusively performed by the bargaining unit or had any practical impacts. After a hearing, the Board found that the training at issue was not exclusively performed by the bargaining unit. The Board further found that there were no practical impacts on safety or discipline because the DOC does not use the tactics or the weapon at issue. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

The Union alleged that the FDNY refused to bargain over the alleged workload and safety impacts of a pilot program under which EMS Supervisors are assigned to perform paramedic duties in addition to their supervisory duties. The City argued that the Union has failed to establish that the pilot program had any practical impacts. After a hearing, the Board found that the Union established that the pilot program has a practical impact on workload because it regularly requires EMS Supervisors to work overtime to complete their job duties and ordered impact bargaining. The record did not establish a safety impact. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part and denied in part.

LEEBA appealed the dismissal of its petition for lacking a sufficient showing of interest. The Board upheld the dismissal.

LEEBA appealed the dismissal of its petition for lacking a sufficient showing of interest. The Board upheld the dismissal.

The Union sought to amend Certification No. 3-88 to add the title Director of Planning. HHC argued that the title should be excluded from collective bargaining as managerial and/or confidential. The Board found that the employees in the title are eligible for collective bargaining and added the title to the bargaining unit.

The City of New York Office of Labor Relations claimed that LEEBA repudiated a memorandum of agreement, in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(2) and (c)(5), when it refused to sign a successor agreement, made additional economic demands, and sought the appointment of a mediation panel regarding those demands. LEEBA argued that it was unable to sign the successor agreement until certain economic demands had been bargained. It also contended that its demands should have been included in the memorandum of agreement. The Board found that LEEBA had bargained in bad faith. Accordingly, the improper practice petition was granted.

HHC challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that it violated the collective bargaining agreement and its operating procedure when it failed to afford procedural counseling to the grievant prior to disciplining her. HHC argued that arbitration of the Union’s claim is precluded because the allegations fall outside the contractual definition of a grievance and because the grievant was a provisional employee excluded from the due process rights afforded under the Provisional Due Process Agreement. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus between the grievance and the cited contractual provision. Accordingly, it denied HHC’s petition challenging arbitrability and granted the Union’s request for arbitration.

Petitioner appealed the Executive Secretary’s dismissal of her petition because it did not allege facts sufficient to establish a cause of action under the NYCCBL. Petitioner argued that she pleaded facts establishing violations of the NYCCBL. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the allegations in the petition insufficient to establish a cause of action. Accordingly, it affirmed the dismissal of the petition and denied the appeal.

Petitioner claimed that DHS violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (2), and (3) when it interfered with and deprived her of union representation in connection with a disciplinary action that resulted in her resignation. The City argued that DHS did not violate Petitioner’s right to union representation because she did not request representation during an investigatory interview. The Board found that the City did not violate the NYCCBL because at the time Petitioner allegedly requested union representation, any investigation had ceased and, therefore, the City was no longer required to provide it. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Union filed a verified improper practice petition alleging that the City violated § 12-306(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the NYCCBL when it issued Operations Orders that unilaterally changed compensation for pre-shift briefings conducted by Lieutenants and Captains within the Emergency Medical Services Division. The Union also claimed that the Operations Orders were issued in retaliation for objections that were raised to a proposed settlement of a FLSA lawsuit that was brought by Union members with the assistance of the Union. The City argued that the Operations Orders neither implicate a mandatory subject of bargaining nor constitute a change to past practice. The City also argued that it was not improperly motivated when it issued the Operations Orders and that it had legitimate business reasons for doing so. The Board found that the FDNY did not make a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining. It further found that the FDNY had legitimate business reasons for issuing the Operations Orders. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Tripartite committee will be meeting on January 22 at 11:00 am at OCB.

Any management or labor representative who wishes to participate in the committee should contact Deputy General Counsel Abigail Levy at alevy@ocb.nyc.gov.

Please see the proposed Changes:  

The Union alleged that the City and DOC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4) by directly negotiating with bargaining unit members and making unilateral changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining. The City maintains that any communication that took place with these employees was simply to provide information and direction regarding the new programs to which they were being assigned and that there was no change of DOC policy or practice on these subjects. The Board found that DOC engaged in direct dealing and violated its duty to bargain in good faith concerning parking privileges. The Board did not find that DOC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) or (4) with respect to any of the other claims. Accordingly, the petition was granted, in part, and denied, in part.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to pursue his termination to arbitration and not challenging the City’s failure to provide him with informal conferences on five disciplinary charges or to adhere to the time limits of the contractual grievance procedure. The City argued that his claims were untimely. The City and the Union also argued that Petitioner failed to state a claim for a breach of the duty of fair representation. The Board dismissed some of Petitioner’s claims as untimely and found that Petitioner’s timely claims did not establish that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the improper practice petition was dismissed.

The Union alleged that DOC unilaterally amended an agency directive to establish new work rules that are mandatory subjects of bargaining, in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4). It further alleged that the amendments are material changes that result in safety and workload impacts and expose bargaining unit members to discipline. The City argued that it amended the directive pursuant to its rights under NYCCBL § 12-307(b) and that the revisions are de minimus. It contended that the Union failed to offer sufficient details to support a claim that DOC’s action results in a safety or workload impact on bargaining unit members. The Board held that the amendments do not result in any changes to a mandatory subject of bargaining. It further held that the facts pleaded were insufficient to support a claim of practical impact on bargaining unit members. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Any management or labor representative who wishes to participate in the committee should contact Deputy General Counsel Abigail Levy at alevy@ocb.nyc.gov.

Tripartite Committee on Rules Revisions has begun to consider revisions to OCB’s Rules.

The Committee will meet on November 16, 2017 at 2pm and December 12, 2017 at 2 pm at OCB’s office.
Any management or labor representative who wishes to participate in the committee should contact Deputy General Counsel Abigail Levy at alevy@ocb.nyc.gov.  Amendments and a summary of the amendments that are currently under consideration are attached.

Proposed-Changes-to-Rules-9-29-17.pdf

Proposed-Rules-Revision-Summary-9-29-17.pdf

YCHA challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that it failed to promote Grievant. It argued there was no nexus with the parties’ collective bargaining agreement or Executive Order 75. The Board found that there is a nexus to both the collective bargaining agreement and Executive Order 75. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the request for arbitration was granted.

HHC challenged the arbitrability of a grievance that alleges it violated the layoff provision of the Citywide Agreement by failing to recognize seniority when it reassigned Grievants. HHC argued that this dispute involves its Personnel Rules and is excluded from arbitration and, thus, the Union failed to establish a nexus between the subject matter of the grievance and the layoff provision. The Board found that the Union did not establish a nexus between the grievance and the layoff provision. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was granted, and the request for arbitration was denied.

Effective immediately, NYC Health + Hospitals has voluntarily recognized the New York State Nurses Association as the bargaining representative of the title described below, and the Staff Nurses bargaining unit, Certification No. 30-82, has been amended to reflect this addition: Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (Correctional Health Services) (Title Code No. 009990)

NYC Health + Hospitals sought to amend NYSNA’s bargaining unit, Certification No. 30-82, to add Accountable Care Manager and delete Care Manager, Registered Nurse, Levels I and II to reflect the reclassification of this title. The Board amended the certification.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to assist her in obtaining a collectively-bargained wage increase. The Union and the City argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner's claim fails to establish that the Union breached the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

HHC challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging a wrongful termination. It argued there was no nexus with the parties' collective bargaining agreements because the termination was not for disciplinary reasons and was a proper exercise of its statutory management rights. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was denied.

On June 8, 2017, over 160 attendees celebrated the 50^th Anniversary of the New York City Collective Bargaining Law at the Cornell Club in New York City. Click on the link above to see photos from the event and for an electronic copy of the 50^th Anniversary Booklet.

The Uniformed Fire Alarm Dispatchers Benevolent Association, Inc. filed a petition to amend Certification No. 57-78 to reflect that the certified bargaining representative's name has changed. The Board amended the certification.

OSA sought to add Confidential Strategy Planner titles at

various agencies to Certification No. 3-88. By agreement of the parties, the Board

added the titles to the unit and designated three positions as confidential.

Petitioner alleged that NYCHA retaliated against her in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by improperly disciplining her and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b) by not responding to her request for assistance. The Union argued that it fulfilled its duty of fair representation and that Petitioner fails to state a claim. NYCHA argued that Petitioner's claim against the must fail because her underlying grievance is not meritorious. The Board found that Petitioner failed to allege a prima facie case against either party. Therefore, the improper practice petition was dismissed.

Petitioner alleged that the City and the FDNY violated
NYCCBL § 12-306(a}(l}, (4), and (5) by unilaterally changing the value of a day's
pay for disciplinary fines when the parties' collective bargaining agreements were
in status quo. The City argued that the Board lacks jurisdiction, the petition is
untimely, and that the value of a day's pay for disciplinary fines is not a mandatory
subject of bargaining. The Board found that it has jurisdiction over Petitioner's
claims and that the petition is timely. The Board also found that the value of a
day's pay for disciplinary fines is a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the
City violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(l), (4), and (5) when it changed its value
during the period when the parties' collective bargaining agreements were in status
quo. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

Petitioner alleged that the City and the FDNY violated
NYCCBL § 12-306(a}(l}, (4), and (5) by unilaterally changing the value of a day's
pay for disciplinary fines when the parties' collective bargaining agreements were
in status quo. The City argued that the Board lacks jurisdiction, the petition is
untimely, and that the value of a day's pay for disciplinary fines is not a mandatory
subject of bargaining. The Board found that it has jurisdiction over Petitioner's
claims and that the petition is timely. The Board also found that the value of a
day's pay for disciplinary fines is a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the
City violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(l), (4), and (5) when it changed its value
during the period when the parties' collective bargaining agreements were in status
quo. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

Based on the results of an election, the Board terminated Certification No. 25-74 and certified LEEBA as the exclusive bargaining representative for the Sanitation Enforcement Agent Bargaining Unit.

The Union sought to amend Certification No. 3-88 to add

the title Senior Auditor. HHC argued that the title should be excluded from

collective bargaining. The Board found that the employees in the title are eligible

for collective bargaining and added the title to the bargaining unit.

The City sought to delete vacant and obsolete titles from the Social Services bargaining unit, Certification No. 37-78. The Board amended the certification.

HHC challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging a wrongful termination. HHC argued there was no nexus with the Agreement because its action was not disciplinary and its action was a proper exercise of its statutory management rights. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was denied.

Petitioner argued that NYCHA retaliated against him in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by withholding part of a Workers Compensation award and taking improper deductions from his paycheck related to that award. NYCHA argued that Petitioner's claims are untimely and that its actions were authorized by the Workers' Compensation award and the collective bargaining agreement. The Board found that Petitioner's claim was timely but did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the improper practice petition.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to fairly represent him in a disciplinary proceeding. Respondents argued that many of the claims raised by Petitioner were untimely and that the Union properly represented Petitioner. The Board dismissed some of Petitioner's claims as untimely and found that Petitioner's timely claims did not establish that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the improper practice petition was dismissed.

The Union alleged that HHC violated NYCCBL §§ 12-306(a)(1), (a)(4), and (c)(4) by failing to comply with the Union's information request concerning the use of temporary employees. HHC argues that is has complied with the information request on a rolling basis and continues to do so, and that it is foreclosed from disclosing certain information due to non-disclosure agreements that it has signed. The Board found that HHC violated the NYCCBL by failing to promptly provide the information requested. Therefore, the improper practice petition was granted.

The PBA moved to defer or alternatively to dismiss the City's petition alleging that the PBA violated NYCCBL §§ 12-306(b)(2), (c)(1), and (c)(5) by challenging the implementation of the 2016 health benefits agreements between the City and the MLC. The PBA argued that the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that it is untimely, that it fails to state a claim, and/or because it cannot obtain due process before the Board. It further argued that the Board should defer consideration of the petition pending the outcome of a grievance and lawsuit that it filed. The City and the MLC opposed the deferral and the dismissal of the petition. The Board determined that the petition was timely filed and that it states a cause of action, that deferral of the petition is not appropriate, and that the PBA has not demonstrated that it is unable to obtain due process before the Board. Accordingly, the motion was denied.

Petitioner filed a pro se verified improper practice petition alleging that NYCHA violated § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) of the NYCCBL by unilaterally revoking his ability to perform a "split shift" schedule, in retaliation for his union activities. He also alleged that NYCHA's time and leave policies discriminated against and interfered with union activities. Petitioner further claimed that both Local 375 and DC 37 breached their duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by failing to adequately represent him regarding this dispute with NYCHA. NYCHA argued that its policies do not provide for a split shift and that its action was not motivated by a desire to discourage Petitioner's union activity. The Union argued that it properly represented Petitioner and that there was no evidence that he was discriminated against. The Board found that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination against NYCHA and that its time and leave policies did not interfere with union activities. The Board further found that the claims against Local 375 were untimely and that the evidence did not establish that DC 37 acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner. Therefore, the improper practice petition was denied in its entirety.

OSA sought to add the titles Strategic Initiative Specialist (NC-DOT), Strategic Initiative Specialist (NC-HRA), and Strategic Initiative Specialist (NC-DEP) to Certification No. 3-88. By agreement of the parties, the Board added the titles to the unit and designated two positions confidential.

LEEBA filed a petition to represent Sanitation Enforcement Officers and Associate Sanitation Enforcement Officers, currently represented by CWA. The City argued that, since the memorandum of agreement between the City and CWA was not ratified, the petition was untimely under the contract bar rule. In this interim decision, the Board found that LEEBA filed a timely petition supported by a sufficient showing of interest and ordered an election.

The City challenged the arbitrability of two grievances alleging that the FDNY violated the Agreement, Department Regulations, the EEO policy, and the First Amendment, when it selectively disciplined Grievant, deprived him of individual rights, and failed to follow proper procedures in connection with a disciplinary interview. The City argued that the Union submitted an invalid waiver because the claims were presented during an OATH trial. The City also argued that the Union failed to establish the requisite nexus between its claims and the Agreement. The Union alleged that its waivers were valid because OATH never considered its claims, and argued that it established the requisite nexus. The Board found that the waiver was invalid as to certain claims that were decided by OATH on their merits. Additionally, the Board found that a nexus existed as to the claims that were not waived. Accordingly, the FDNY's petition challenging arbitrability was granted in part and denied in part, and the Union's requests for arbitration were granted in part and denied in part.

The Union alleged that DEP retaliated against a provisional Construction Laborer in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by not appointing him to permanent status. DEP argued that its decision not to grant permanent status was based upon his disciplinary record. The Board found that the union demonstrated prima facie evidence of retaliation. Nevertheless, the agency had legitimate business reasons for its decision. Therefore, the improper practice petition is dismissed.

The Union alleged that NYCHA violated NYCCBL §§ 12-306(a)(4) and 12-307(a) by unilaterally discontinuing the practice of providing two hours of excused time during the holiday season. NYCHA argued that there was no practice of granting such excused time. The Board found that NYCHA did maintain such a practice and that unilaterally discontinuing it violated the NYCCBL. Therefore, the improper practice petition was granted.

Petitioner argued that NYCHA violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by removing job duties and transferring him in retaliation for filing an out-of-title grievance. NYCHA argued that Petitioner did not suffer an adverse employment action and that it had legitimate business reasons for the transfer. The Board found that the removal of the job duties was not an adverse employment action. The Board further found that Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation regarding his transfer. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the improper practice petition.

Petitioner alleged that the City violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (4), and (5) when it unilaterally implemented minimum staffing overtime eligibility criteria for Marine Engineers, Pilots, and Wipers. The City argued that such eligibility criteria are nonmandatory subjects of bargaining; the FDNY has a managerial prerogative to assign overtime; and that its implementation was a de minimis change. The Board found that the criteria were mandatory subjects of bargaining; that their implementation was not a de minimis change; and that the City violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (4), and (5) when it applied these criteria without negotiation during the period when the parties' collective bargaining agreements were in status quo. Accordingly, the petition was granted.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that the DOT violated the collective bargaining agreement by restricting Grievant's work assignments and overtime opportunities. The City argued that the Union's claims were precluded by res judicata and that it failed to establish the requisite nexus between the subject of the grievance and the collective bargaining agreement. The Union argued that its claims were not precluded by res judicata and that a nexus existed. The Board found that the Union's waiver was invalid as to the claim seeking to confirm the arbitration award and that the Union's remaining claims are not precluded by res judicata. The Board also found that a nexus existed with respect to the wrongful discipline and restriction of overtime opportunities claims and that the parties' Agreement did not allow for the arbitration of past practices. Accordingly, the Board granted, in part, and denied, in part, the petition challenging arbitrability.

Joint certificate holders sought to add the title Apprentice (Painter) to the Painters bargaining unit, Certification No. 47-74. The Board added the title to the bargaining unit.

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION

Effective immediately, the City of New York has voluntarily recognized District Council 37 as the bargaining representative of the titles described below, and the Accounting and EDP bargaining unit, Certification No. 46D-75, has been amended to reflect this addition:

DATE OF FILING: August 18, 2016 DOCKET #: VR-1637-16

TITLES:

IT Automation and Monitoring Engineer (Title Code No. 06795)

IT Infrastructure Engineer (Title Code No. 06796)

IT Project Specialist (Title Code No. 06797)

IT Security Specialist (Title Code No. 06798)

IT Service Management Specialist (Title Code 06799)

Senior IT Architect (Title Code No. 06800)

OCB is excited to announce the continuation of its well-received training programs in dispute resolution and in practice and procedure before the OCB.In September and October, we are offering three free programs to interested agency and union labor relations staff.

Space in these programs is already filled, but if you would like to be on the wait list, send an email with your name, title, work location and a brief summary of your role in labor relations to zvalerio@ocb.nyc.gov.

The City sought to delete vacant and obsolete titles

from the Attorneys bargaining unit, Certification No. CWR-44/67. The

Board amended the certification.

LEEBA filed a petition to represent the School Safety/Traffic bargaining unit, represented by OSA. As the petition was timely and supported by a sufficient showing of interest, the Board conducted an election to ascertain the employees' wishes as to their union representation. Based on the results of the election, OSA remains the exclusive bargaining representative of the bargaining unit.

The City sought to amend DC 37's Certification

No. 46D-75 to add Certified IT Administrator (LAN/WAN) and delete

Certified IT Administrator (LAN) and Certified IT Administrator (WAN)

to reflect the reclassification of these titles. The Board amended the

certification.

The Unions claimed that the FDNY unilaterally

implemented a new procedure omitting certain FDNY employees from the

processing of 911 emergency calls without first bargaining, and the new procedure

has a practical impact on the safety of their employees. The Unions claimed that

the City*s failure to bargain over the alleviation of the impact violates the

NYCCBL. The City contended that the methods and technology by which it

provides its 911 response is within its prerogative and that there is no evidence of a

safety impact on the Unions‟ members. The Board found that the record did not

establish that changes to the call-taking system resulted in a safety impact and

dismissed the petition.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that the City‟s failure to pay unit members the maximum salary rates violated the parties‟ Agreement. The City argued that payment of the maximum rate is not required by the Agreement or the MOA and does not constitute a grievable issue. It also argued that the Union failed to establish a nexus between the grievance and any provisions of the Agreement, or DOT‟s rules, regulations, or written policies. The Union contended that a nexus exists between its request and the salary provisions of the Agreement. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the request for arbitration was granted.

Petitioner argued that DOHMH retaliated against her for protected union activity in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by disciplining her, denying her request for a transfer, and failing to honor her direct deposit request. The City argues that Petitioner has not established a prima facie case and that it has demonstrated legitimate business reasons for DOHMH‟s actions. The Board found that Petitioner has not established a prima facie case of retaliation. Accordingly, the improper practice petition was dismissed.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that DHS violated the parties‟ collective bargaining agreement by refusing to provide the Grievant with Fridays off as a religious accommodation, rejecting a request for an alternative work schedule, and violating provisions regarding shift assignments. The City argued that the Union failed to establish the requisite nexus between the subject of the grievance and the collective bargaining agreement. The Board found that, with the exception of the EEO policy claim, a nexus existed as to the Union‟s claims. Accordingly, the Board granted, in part, and denied, in part, the City‟s petition challenging arbitrability.

Petitioner appealed the Determination of the Executive Secretary that dismissed his improper practice petition because it did not plead facts sufficient to establish a violation of the NYCCBL. Petitioner argued that the petition alleged facts sufficient to raise an inference that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The Board found that the Executive Secretary properly deemed the charges in the petition insufficient, and denied the appeal.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by not adequately representing her, including failing to file a grievance on her behalf. Respondents argued that some of the claims are untimely, that the Union properly represented Petitioner, and that Petitioner did not have disciplinary grievance rights because she was a provisional employee. The Board found that Petitioner‟s allegations do not establish that the Union violated the NYCCBL. Accordingly, the improper practice petition was dismissed.

NYCHA challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that it violated the Citywide Agreement when it denied the Grievant compensation for overtime work performed. NYCHA argued that the Union failed to establish the requisite nexus between the grievance and Article IV of the Citywide Agreement because NYCHA is not a party to the Citywide Agreement. It further argued there is no nexus to the parties‟ Letter or Unit Agreements because they do not contain a provision for overtime. The Union argued that NYCHA elected to be bound by the Citywide Agreement and, furthermore, NYCHA‟s Rules set forth a requirement to pay overtime. Thus, the Union contended that it had established the requisite nexus. The Board found that the Union established the requisite nexus. Accordingly, NYCHA‟s petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the Union‟s request for arbitration was granted.

The Union alleged that the City violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by discharging a probationary employee in retaliation for requesting the assistance of her Union delegates. The City argued that the Union failed to present facts sufficient to state a prima facie case of retaliation and that the probationary employee was discharged for legitimate business reasons. The Board found that the Union proffered its prima facie case, but that the City refuted the causation prong and provided legitimate business reasons for its actions. Accordingly, the improper practice petition was dismissed.

The Union alleged that HHC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (4), and (5) by unilaterally changing employee compensation for working on holidays. HHC argued that the Union failed to demonstrate the existence of a practice because HHC did not have the requisite actual or constructive knowledge of the practice and that the supervisors at issue lacked the authority to bind HHC. The Board found that HHC had unilaterally changed doctor‟s compensation, a mandatory subject of bargaining. Therefore, the improper practice petition was granted. (

The Organization of Staff Analysts sought to add the title Junior Clinical Business Analyst to Certification No. 3-88. The Board added the title to the bargaining unit.

The Union alleged that the FDNY violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5) when it modified radio frequencies located inside of fire engines and ladder trucks to permit certain employees to communicate directly with EMS dispatch. The Union claimed that this constituted a unilateral change in the FDNY's procedures and resulted in the transfer of bargaining unit work from its members to EMS dispatchers. The City argued that the FDNY had no obligation to bargain over the change, which was an exercise of its managerial rights under NYCCBL § 12-306(b) to determine the methods, means, and personnel by which its operations are to be conducted. The Board found that the FDNY did not make a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining. Accordingly, the petition was denied.

The Union alleged that HHC violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) by removing certain job duties from an employee and transferring her in retaliation for filing a grievance and serving as a shop steward. HHC argued that the removal of duties claim was untimely; that the alleged retaliatory acts were not motivated by the employee's union activities; and that it had legitimate business reasons for its actions. The Board found that the removal of duties claim was untimely. The Board also found that the Union proffered a prima facie case of retaliation, which was rebutted by HHC. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Based on the results of an election, the Board amended OSA's Certification No. 3-88 to add the title Senior Consultant, Management Information Services, Levels I, II, and III.

The Union alleged that NYCHA violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) when it terminated a probationary employee in retaliation for engaging in protected union activity, including seeking union representation at a meeting and the filing of a grievance. NYCHA argued that the employee was terminated for legitimate business reasons and that the decision to terminate her was made before NYCHA was aware of the grievance. The Board found that the Union established its prima facie case but that NYCHA refuted the causation prong and provided legitimate business reasons for its actions. Therefore, the improper practice petition was dismissed.

In response to stipulations among the parties, the Board added the titles Administrative Director of Laboratory (Water Quality) (Non-Managerial), Administrative Project Director (HPD) (Non- Managerial), and Administrative Project Manager (Non-Managerial) to Certification No. 26-78.

The Union sought to amend Certification No. 55-70 to add the title Director of Motor Equipment Maintenance (Sanitation), contending that changed circumstances mandate that the Board re-evaluate the title and add it to the bargaining unit. The City argued that the title should remain excluded from collective bargaining as managerial. The Board held that the title is eligible for collective bargaining with the exception of the Deputy Commissioner for Support Services position that the parties agree is managerial.

In response to stipulations among the parties, the Board added the title Administrative Inspector (Electrical) to Certification No. 15-71 and the titles Administrative Architect, Administrative City Planner, Administrative Construction Project Manager, Administrative Engineer, Administrative Housing Development Specialist, Administrative Inspector (Buildings), Administrative Landmarks Preservationist, and Administrative Landscape Architect to Certification No. 26-78.

The City challenged the arbitrability of a grievance alleging that DOC violated the parties‟ collective bargaining agreement when it failed to pay Grievant the appropriate rate and provide other benefits after a separation from service. The City argued that the request for arbitration must be denied because the Union has not established the requisite nexus to the Agreement. The City further argued that the Union is seeking to arbitrate DOC‟s application of the Civil Service Law, which it contends is not grievable nor within the jurisdiction of the Board. The Board found that the Union had established the requisite nexus to the Agreement and was not seeking to arbitrate the Civil Service Law. Accordingly, the petition challenging arbitrability was denied, and the request for arbitration was granted.

Dear Senior Consultant, MIS:

An election by secret electronic ballot is being conducted by the Board of Certification among
individuals in the titles of Senior Consultant, Management Information Services, Levels I, II, and
III employed by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation ("HHC") to determine your
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.

As a result of a post office error, the voting materials previously sent to you were not delivered
in a timely manner. To ensure that you have an opportunity to vote, the election is being extended
to November 2, 2015 (2 pm). If you already voted, you do not need to vote again. Your previous vote
will be counted.

ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE:

Voter eligibility has remained the same. Employees in the titles of Senior Consultant,
Management Information Services, Levels I, II, and III, who were employed by HHC during the payroll
period ending June 27, 2015, and who are still employed on September 30, 2015 will be eligible to
vote, including employees who did not work during this period because of illness, vacation, or
temporary leave.

VOTING:

A second set of instructions will be mailed to eligible voters indicating that the voting period
for the election has been extended until November 2, 2015 at 2:00 PM. You may vote via computer,
mobile device, or by telephone anytime until November 2, 2015 at 2:00 PM ET. You may not change
your vote after you have submitted it. The Ballot Tally will be held on November 2,
2015 at 3:00 PM ET at the Office of Collective Bargaining. Designated representatives of all
interested parties may be present at this time.

If you did not receive your voting instructions and access code and you believe you are an
eligible voter, you should contact the Office of Collective Bargaining at (212) 306-7160 no later
than November 1, 2015.

Click Read More for further instructions.

LEEBA filed a petition to represent the Inspectors (Highway & Sewers) bargaining unit, represented by Local 1042. As the petition was timely and supported by a sufficient showing of interest, the Board conducted an election to ascertain the employees' wishes as to their union representation. Based on the results of the election, the Board terminated Certification No. 10-77 and certified LEEBA as the exclusive bargaining representative of the bargaining unit.

(Rep) (Docket Nos. RE-178-07, RU-1249-05, RU-1250-05, RU-1255-08, and AC-36-07).

Summary of Decision: Based on the results of a mail ballot election, the Board certified Local 237
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit of Taxi and Limousine Inspectors and Special
Officers created in DC 37, 7 OCB2d 1 (BOC 2014).

We are pleased to welcome our new General Counsel Steven Star, and Deputy Chair for Dispute Resolution Monu Singh to our staff! Steven Star joins OCB from the law firm Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein where he was a partner representing public and private sector unions. Monu Singh was previously Director of Labor Relations for the MTA- Long Island Rail Road. You can read more about them under the About tab on the website.

The Union sought to amend Certification No. 3-88 to add the titles Program Manager, Training and Development, Levels I and II; Assistant Director of Workforce Training and Development Managerial Pay Plan II and III; and Director of Workforce Training and Staff Development. HHC argued that the titles were excluded from collective bargaining. The Board found that the employees in the titles are eligible for collective bargaining and appropriately added to Certification No. 3-88.

We are pleased to announce the launch of our new website. We have completely redesigned our website. Starting with our users' needs in mind, we've focused on making the site easier to navigate, more interactive, while providing greater resources to you.

For all users, our new site includes features such as:

-A cleaner, more user-friendly interface

-Improved navigation with quick links to dive deep into the web site directly from the home page

-A new "Research" tab which includes a full range of user resources

-A vastly improved, Google-like search function so you can find that case you need ASAP, using natural language

-A fully-responsive design, suitable for the device and screen size of your choosing

-Improved content, such as a handy list of Helpful Links to assist you in finding the correct agency to address employment-related issues

For our arbitrators, we offer a newly-created login area just for you. Once you login to a secure area, you will be able to:

1) View and edit the resume you have on file here at OCB

2) View the OCB arbitration calendar to see when you have a case scheduled

Of course, the launch of our new site is just the starting point. We will be continuing to improve the content, features and resources available in the near and distant future.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by not properly representing her regarding a transfer request. The Union asserted that some of Petitioner's claims are untimely, that it acted reasonably and in good faith, and that it did not act in a discriminatory or bad faith manner. Additionally, Respondents argued that Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie claim of a violation of the NYCCBL or to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The Board found that Petitioner's timely allegations do not establish that the Union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petitioner alleged that the City's inspection and review of his home septic system and its failure to address his request for a pay differential violated NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (4). Petitioner also alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b)(3) by treating members who work outside of the City limits differently than those who work within the City and by not adequately representing him in securing a pay differential and in a grievance. The Board found that Petitioner's timely allegations did not establish a violation of the NYCCBL. Therefore, the improper practice petition was denied.

Petitioner alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b) by failing to adequately address his requests for assistance regarding counseling memos and an unsatisfactory performance evaluation that resulted in his termination. Respondents argued that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation because Petitioner was terminated during his probationary period and the Union was responsive to Petitioner's requests for assistance, secured a transfer offer for him that he refused, and could not otherwise appeal his termination. The Board found that Petitioner's allegations do not establish that the Union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner. Therefore, the improper practice petition was denied.

Petitioner alleges that the City retaliated against him in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(a)(1) and (3) and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in violation of NYCCBL § 12-306(b). Respondents argued that Petitioner's claims are untimely and, in the alternative, that Petitioner fails to state a claim. The Board found that some of Petitioner's allegations are untimely, and that Petitioner's timely allegations do not state facts that would establish claims under the NYCCBL. Therefore, the improper practice petition is dismissed.

HHC PBA filed a petition to represent the Special Officer titles employed by HHC in a separate bargaining unit. HHC PBA argued that HHC Special Officers should be fragmented from their current bargaining unit, because they perform "police-like functions" and have a conflict of interest with other titles in the bargaining unit. Respondents argued that the exception to the Board's traditional policy against fragmentation applies only to titles that are defined as "police officers" under the New York Criminal Procedure Law and not "peace officers." Furthermore, Respondents argued that the HHC Special Officers' unit placement remains appropriate. The Board found that the HHC Special Officers' primary duty is providing hospital security and not the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general laws of the state. Therefore, the HHC Special Officers' placement in their current unit remained appropriate. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

OSA petitioned to add the title Senior Consultant,
Management Information Services to its bargaining unit. DC 37 intervened and sought to add the
title to its bargaining unit. HHC argued that SC/MISs are excluded from collective bargaining
because they are managerial and/or confidential under Taylor Law § 201.7(a) and in the alternative,
HHC Act § 7385(11). The Board held that the HHC Act and the NYCCBL are consistent in mandating the
application of Taylor Law § 201.7(a) to HHC employees to determine their eligibility for collective
bargaining. The Board found that the SC/MIS title was eligible for collective bargaining and that
either bargaining unit is appropriate. The Board directed an election to ascertain the wishes of
the employees as to their union representation.