District Council 37, Local 461 and Local 508, 61 OCB 9 (BCB 1998) [Decision No. B-9-98 (Arb)], called into question, see City of New York v. DeCosta, 95 N.Y.2d 273, 716 N.Y.S.2d 353 (2000). OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Arbitration : : between : : THE CITY OF NEW YORK, : : Petitioner, : Decision No. B-9-98 : Docket No. BCB-1918-97 and : (A-6771-97) : LOCAL 461, LOCAL 508 and : DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, : Respondents. : ------------------------------------------------------x DECISION AND ORDER On June 20, 1997, the City of New York ("City"), appearing by its Office of Labor Relations, filed a petition challenging the arbitrability of a grievance filed by District Council 37 ("DC 37" or "Union"). The Union filed an answer on July 28, 1997, and on August 22, 1997, the City filed its reply. The Union asserts that in February, 1997, the City’s Department of Investigation 1 ("DOI") conducted investigations of seasonal employees at the Department of Parks and Recreation ("DPR") who were represented by Locals 461 and 508 of DC 37. In response, on February 27, 1997, the 1 The DOI is statutorily charged with the duty of investigating criminal misconduct and detecting corruption. See, New York State General City Law §20 (21); New York City Charter, Ch. 34, §§ 803 & 805.
Decision No. B-9-98 2 Docket No. BCB-1918-97 (A-6771-97) Union filed a Step III group grievance, alleging a violation of Article XXIII, §11 of the Seasonal Unit Agreement (“Agreement”) in that investigators were sent to the homes of union members to interview them without, a) providing proper advance notice; b) informing the employees of their right to union representation or legal counsel; c) affording the right of union representation or legal counsel; d) conducting interviews in an appropriate setting. On May 29, 1997, without having received a response from the City, 2 the Union filed a request for arbitration. The request alleges grievances identical to those enumerated in the Step III grievance, cited above, and seeks, as remedies, (i) the cessation of the interviews; (ii) that the City comply with the contract; (iii) punitive damages; and (iv) other relief deemed appropriate. We note here, that in Decision No. B-2-98 (BCB-1896-97; A-6611-97), issued on January 27, 1998, this Board dealt with a request for arbitration identical to the one before us now; the parties and legal theories pertaining to the claims and defenses are identical. We therefore refer the parties to Decision No. B-2-98, for a full and complete discussion of the i) positions of the parties; ii) the rationale for the Board’s decision; and iii) the City members’ dissent. 3 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Decision No. B-2-98, we will deny the instant petition challenging arbitrability. 2 In light of the fact that the Union filed a request for arbitration, the City issued a letter on July 8, 1997, closing its file on the Step III grievance. 3 See also, Decision No. B-46-97.
Decision No. B-9-98 3 Docket No. BCB-1918-97 (A-6771-97) ORDER Pursuant to the powers vested in the Board of Collective Bargaining by the New York City Collective Bargaining Law, it is hereby ORDERED, that the petition challenging arbitrability filed herein, by the City of New York be, and the same hereby is denied, and it is further, ORDERED, that the request for arbitration filed herein by District Council 37, and the same hereby is, granted. Dated: March 24, 1998 New York, N.Y. Steven C. DeCosta CHAIRMAN Daniel G. Collins MEMBER George Nicolau MEMBER Carolyn Gentile MEMBER Jerome E. Joseph MEMBER We dissent for the reasons stated in our dissenting opinions in Decision Nos. B-2-98 and B-46-97. Richard A. Wilsker MEMBER Saul G. Kramer MEMBER
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.