Walla v. Dep’t of Parks&Rec., Parks Enforce. Patrol, 51 OCB 46 (BCB 1993) [Decision No. B-46-93(ES)] OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ----------------------------------x In the Matter of the Improper Practice Proceeding -between- DECISION NO. B-46-93 (ES) RICHARD WALLA, DOCKET NO. BCB-1579-93 Petitioner, -and- NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, PARKS ENFORCEMENT PATROL and ANTHONY CORDERO, ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR, Respondents. ----------------------------------x DETERMINATION OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY On January 22, 1993, the Office of Collective Bargaining ("OCB") received a verified improper practice petition from Richard Walla ("Petitioner"). In his petition, Petitioner, formerly an Urban Park Ranger, alleges that he had been forced to resign from the Parks Enforcement Patrol because of a private investigation that he conducted for a fellow employee. Although the Assistant Deputy Director allegedly told him that his performance was unsatisfactory, Petitioner maintains that his work was exemplary, that no adverse evaluations or actions had been filed against him, and that he had never been given a supervisory conference. In his view, it was his outside work as an investigator that led to the termination of his employment: I personally feel that the real reason for which I was forced to resign was that I was conducting an investigation for a fellow officer; the fellow officer was involved in a situation which needed to be handled from outside of the department, for safety reasons. This investigation was conducted on my own time, outside of the job. In any other situation, the termination would have been just and appropriate. But not in this case. I am a licensed Private Investigator (PI) issued by NY Dept. of State #22780 [sic]. This empowers me to conduct investigations anywhere in the State . . . includ[ing] the jurisdiction of the Parks Dept. No written or verbal agreement is in effect, between the Dept. & I regarding this type of work. If this were the case, it would have be honored [sic] and no conflict of interest exists.
Decision No. B- -93 (ES) 2 Docket No. BCB-1579-93 Pursuant to Section 1-07(d) of the Rules of the City of New York, a copy of which is annexed hereto, the undersigned has reviewed the petition and has determined that the improper practice claim asserted therein must be dismissed because it fails to state an improper practice under the New York City Collective Bargaining Law ("NYCCBL"). The provisions and procedures of the NYCCBL are designed to safeguard the rights of public employees that are created by the statute, i.e., the right to organize, to form, join and assist public employee organizations, and the right to refrain from such activities. The NYCCBL does not provide a remedy for every perceived wrong or inequity. Although the Petitioner contends that he wrongfully was forced to resign from his employment, he does not assert that the alleged violation was intended to, or did, in fact, affect any of the rights protected by Section 12-306a. 1 of the statute, which defines improper public employer practices. Since the petition does not appear to involve a matter within the 1 NYCCBL §12-306a. (formerly §1173-4.2) provides as follows: Improper practices: good faith bargaining. a. Improper public employer practices. It shall be an improper practice for a public employer or its agents: (1) to interfere with, restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of their rights granted in Section 12-305 (formerly §1173-4.1) of this chapter; (2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any public employee organization; (3) to discriminate against any employee for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging membership in, or participation in the activities of, any public employee organization; (4) to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith on matters within the scope of collective bargaining with certified or designated representatives of its public employees.
Decision No. B- -93 (ES) 3 Docket No. BCB-1579-93 jurisdiction of the OCB, it must be dismissed. Of course, dismissal is without prejudice to any rights that the Petitioner may have in another forum. DATED: New York, New York July __, 1993 Wendy E. Patitucci Acting Executive Secretary Board of Collective Bargaining
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.