CWA v. City, 9 OCB 11 (BCB 1972) [Decision No. B-11-72] OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ------------------------------In the Matter of COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF DECISION NO- B-11-72 AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Petitioner DOCKET NO. BCB-89-71 -and-THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent -------------------------------DECISION AND ORDER By an application dated April 12, 1972, and affidavit dated the same day, the City moves to dismiss the Union's request for the appointment of a trial examiner for the purposes set forth in the Board’s order of March 15, 1972 (Decision No. B-7-72). The ground urged for dismissal is mootness, the City alleging that by reason of the renewal agreement between the parties “the Union has specifically bargained away any rights the Union may have had to training fund contributions . . .” and that the Union’s “initial petition in this matter” has clearly been “held defective” by the Board. The City’s application is without merit. The validity of the Union’s claim regarding contributions to the training fund, its continued vitality during negotiation status quo period, and the effect of the execution of the renewal agreement the training fund are all questions which may be considered by the Trial Examiner.
DECISION NO. B-11-72 2 DOCKET NO. BCB-89-71 With respect to the City’s second assigned reason for dismissal, that the Board found the Union’s initial petition defective, the fact is that the Board’s decision did not so hold. Nor has the City supported this allegation by pointing to, any part of the Board’s decision which, it is claimed, held the Union’s petition defective. 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 ORDERED, that the City’s application be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. DATED: New York, N.Y. April 26 , 1972. ARVID ANDERSON C h a i r m a n WALTER L. EISENBERG M e m b e r ERIC J. SCHMERTZ M e m b e r HARRY VAN ARSDALE, JR. M e m b e r
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.