HHC v. L. 1549, DC 37, 9 OCB 18 (BCB 1972) [Decision No. B-18-72 (Arb)] OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING -------------------------------In the Matter of NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND DECISION NO. B-18-72 HOSPITALS CORPORATION -and-DOCKET NO. BCB-121-72 LOCAL 1549, DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 -------------------------------DECISION AND ORDER The Corporation’s petition herein alleges that the grievance which Respondent seeks to arbitrate is not arbitrable. Local 1549, DC 37, the certified representative of messengers in the Health and Hospitals Corporation filed its request for arbitration asserting that a messenger employed by the Corporation had been assigned to duties substantially different from those stated in his job classification in violation of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. On June 14, 1972, the Corporation filed its petition challenging arbitrability on the ground that the request for arbitration was not timely filed under the parties’ contract, and that the duties assigned are within the grievant’s job description. The Union’s answer asserts that the timeliness of the request for arbitration is a procedural matter and is therefore for the arbitrator, and that the Petitioner’s objection based on the job description goes to the merits and is also for the arbitrator.
Decision No. B-18-72 2 Docket No. BCB-121-73 It is well settled that questions of procedural arbitration, including the timeliness of the request for arbitration under a contract, are for the arbitrator. (OLR v. Social Service Employees Union, Decision No. B-6-68; OLR v. Social Service Employees Union, Decision No. B-7-68). Article VII, Section 1(c) of the contract defines a grievance as “a claimed assignment of employees to duties substantially different from those stated in their job classifications.” Respondent’s claim clearly comes within this definition. Petitioner’s assertion that the assigned duties are within the grievant’s job description calls for a determination of the merits of the dispute and is therefore a question for the arbitrator to decide. (City of New York v. District No.1, MEBA, Decision No. B-2-71) We shall dismiss the Petition and grant the request for arbitration. 0 R D E R Pursuant to the powers vested in the Board of Collective Bargaining by the New York City Collective Bargaining Law, it is hereby
Decision No. B-18-72 3 Docket No. BCB-121-73 ORDERED, that the petition be, and the same hereby is dismissed; and it is further ORDERED, that Respondent’s request for arbitration be, and the same hereby is, granted. DATED: New York, N.Y. October 12, 1972 ARVID ANDERSON CHAIRMAN WALTER L. EISENBERG MEMBER EDWARD SILVER MEMBER THOMAS J. HERLIHY ALTERNATE MEMBER MORRIS IUSHEWITZ ALTERNATE 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.