Gremler v. NYCHA, Orton, 37 OCB 21 (BCB 1986) [Decision No. B-21-86 (ES)] OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ----------------------------------X LAMBERT GREMLER, Petitioner, DECISION NO. B-21-86(ES) -and-DOCKET NO. BCB-860-86 NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY and Chief Supt. Horace L. Orton, Respondents. -----------------------------------X DETERMINATION The petition in this matter was filed on March 17, 1986. Pursuant to Section 7.4 of the Revised Consolidated Rules of the Office of Collective Bargaining (“OCB. Rules”), a copy of which is annexed hereto, the undersigned has reviewed the petition and has determined that it does not allege facts sufficient as a matter of law to constitute an improper practice within the meaning of the New York City Collective Bargaining Law (“NYCCBL”). The petition alleges a complaint concerning the petitioner's demotion from the position of probationary resident building superintendant, the extension of his probationary period without notice, and the re-marking of his third quarterly rating. The petitioner contends that the Housing Authority failed to follow normal procedures and acted without justification. He asserts
Decision No. B-21-86 2 Docket No. BCB-860-86 that these actions are improper practices “.. according to Civil Service laws.” The petition does not allege that the Housing Authority its agents have committed any of the acts specified in Section 1173-4.2a of the NYCCBL. Even assuming the truth and accuracy of the allegations of the petition, it does not appear that the petitioner was re-evaluated and demoted from a promotional title during the term of his probation for any of the proscribed reasons set forth in the NYCCBL. I note that it has been recognized that the rights of probationary employees are limited. 1 The enforcement of any rights they may possess, under applicable agency procedures and/or collective bargaining agreements, would not lie in an improper practice proceeding under the NYCCBL. The provisions of the NYCCBL do not create an additional forum for the vindication of rights created outside of the NYCCBL. The NYCCBL does not provide a remedy for every perceived wrong or inequity. It does provideprocedures designed to safeguard those employees’ rights created in that statute i.e. the right to organize to form, 1 Decision Nos. B-14-86(ES); B-11-76.
Decision No. B-21-86 3 Docket No. BCB-860-86 join, and assist public employee organizations, to bargain collectively through certified public employee organizations; and the right to refrain from such activities. The petition herein does not allege that the employer's action was intended to affect any of these protected rights. Accordingly, I find that no improper employer practice has been stated. The petition, therefore, is dismissed pursuant to Section 7.4 of the OCB Rules. DATED: New York, N.Y April 3, 1986 ------------------------------- William J. Mulry Executive Secretary Board of Collective Bargaining
REVISED CONSOLIDATED RULES OF THE OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING §7.4 improper Practices. A petition alleging that a public employer or its agents or a public employee organization or its agents has engaged in or is engaging in an improper practice in violation of Section 1173-4.2 of the statute may be filed with the Board within four (4) months thereof by one (1) or more public employees or any public employee organization acting in their behalf or by a public employer together with a request to the Board for a final determination of the matter and for an appropriate remedial order. Within ten (10) days after a retition alleging improper practice is filed, the Executive Secretary shall review the allegations thereof to determine whether the facts as alleged may constitute an improper practice as set forth in section 1173-4.2 of the statute. If it is determined that the petition, on its face, does not contain facts sufficient as a matter of law to constitute a violation, or that the alleged violation occurred more than four (4) months prior to the filing of the charge, it shall be dismissed by the Executive Secretary and copies of such determination shall be served upon the parties by certified mail. If, upon such review, the Executive Secretary shall determine that the petition is not, on its face, untimely or insufficient, notice of the determination shall be served on the parties by certified mail, provided, however, that such determination shall not constitute a bar to the assertion by respondent of defenses or challenges to the petition based upon allegations of untimeliness or insufficiency and supported by probative evidence available to the respondent. Within ten (10) days after receipt of a decision of the Executive Secretary dismissing an improper practice petition as provided in this subdivision, the petitioner may file with the Board of Collective Bargaining an original and three (3) copies of a statement in writing setting forth an appeal from the decision together with proof of service thereof upon all other parties. The statement shall set forth the reasons for the appeal. * * * * §7.8 Answer-Service and Filing. Within ten (10) days after service of the petition, or, where the petition contains allegations of improper practice, within ten (10) days of the receipt of notice of finding by the Executive Secretary, pursuant to Rule 7.4, that the petition is not, on its face, untimely or insufficient, respondent shall serve and file its answer upon petitioner and any other party respondent, and shall file the original and three (3) copies thereof, with proof of service,
Decision No. B-21-86 5 Docket No. BCB-860-86 with the Board. Where special circumstances exist that warrant an expedited determination, it shall be within the discretionary authority of the Director to order respondent to serve and file its answer within less than ten (10) days. OTHER SECTIONS OF THE LAW AND RULES MAY BE APPLICABLE. CONSULT THE COMPLETE TEXT.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.