-t .:~ i . OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOARD OF CERTIFICATION x In the Matter of DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and its affiliated Locals 375, 1219, and 1414 DECISIONNO. 68-74 -and-DOCKET NO. RB-40B-73 THE CITY OF NEWYORK AND RELATED PUBLIC EMPLOYERS ------------------x DECISIONAND ORDER InAugust 1973, the Board of Certification initiated a proposed consolidation of 24 inspectorial titles, classified (with one exception Safety Officer) in two closely related Occupational Groups. The projected consolidation involved twelve cert i fi cates (including one based on voluntary recognition) issued to three local unions affili at ed with D.C. 37, AFSCME, AFL -CIO, towit, Locals 375, 1219 and 1414. All three locals, as wel l as D.C. 37 itself, opposed the inclusion in the proposed consolidated uni t of four titles (3 units): Watershed Inspector -cert i fied toLocal 1414 Demolition Inspector and Senior Demol i t i on Inspector certifiedt o Local 1219 Supervising Demolition Inspector certified to Local 1219
Decision No. 68-74 2. Do cket No. RB-40B-73 In DecisionNo. 96-73, the Board comb~ncd 20 "technical" inspector titles represented by Civil Service Technical Guild, Local 375 D.C. 37 AFSCME, AFL-CIOinto ~ single unit, no objectionhaving been posed t o this much of the proposed consol i dat ion. The Board reserved decisioll as t o whether the four disputed watershed and demoliti on inspector titles should be joinedwith the consolidated uni t , and ordered a hearing t o take evidence concerning t he uni t placement of the di sput ed t itl es . Such a hearing was held before Ernest Doer fler , Esq., Trial Examiner, on March 13 and March 19, 1974. Burden of Proof At the outset of the hearing, the unions raised the quest ion as t o who has the burden of proof t o show that a Board-proposed consol idated unit is (or i s not) appropriat" . They cont ended that the Board of Cert i fication, as t he movinc, party, has the obl igat ion t o establish that t he proposed uni, '. i s appropriate, i.e. that it meets the st at ut ory standards governi ng the determination of bargaining units . Howev er, a represent ation hearing i s not an adversary proceeding but rat her is part of a continuing investigation by the Board (Rule 1.5). The Board of Cert ificat ion i s not an i nt erest ed party i n the sense that it represent s eitller publ ic empl oyees or the publ i c employer . Its .t ut.hori t y and its statutory reason for being are t o det.ermi no the groupin,:, ';
Decisio!l No. 68-74 3. Doc ket No. RB-40B-73 of employees appropri ate for bargaining (ยง1173-S. 0 b. of N YCCBL) . Indeed, this statutory responsibi l ity embraces not only the cert i ficat ion of newrepresentatives i n a ppropri ate bargai ni ng units, but also entai ls a duty to monitor and reexamine on a cont i nui ng basis all exi st ing bargaini ng uni t s wi th a viewto promot i ng effi ci ent operation of the pUblic service and sound labor relations. In pract ice, this has been found t o require continuing efforts t o reduce the number of bargaining units in a manner compatible wi t h st at ut ory cri teria, i.e., full freedomof public employees to exercise their rights under the NewYork Ci ty Collective Bargaining Law, communi ty of interest among the employees; the history of coLlcct rvc-lยทr:.:'gai ni ng, the effect of the unit(s) on the effi cient operat i on of the public service and sound l abor relations, and the effective authority of the relevant government offi ci al s tobargain. For all the foregoing reasons, t herefore, the suggestion that t he Board has a dut y to prove or defend the appropriateness of a p roposed consolidation is ill-conceived. Whether consol i-dat ion is upon st i pUl at ion of all the parties, or on the motion of a par ty or group of par t ies, or is bei ng considered upon t he Board' s own motion, the Board i s, nonetheless, the arbi ter of ~he issue, not a di sput ant .
Decision No.68-74 Docket No. RB-40B-73 4. Moreover , n Board-i ni t i at ed consol i dation proceedinq i s simply a proposal , and not a fi nal determination or statement of a fixed posi t i on. Notwi t hst andi ng the Board's general commitment to t he pol i cy of reducing the number of bargai ni ng uni t s through consolidation, it will weigh the unique considerations ingiven cases that may argue against con-sol i dat ion. After hearing all the parties, the Board wi l l reviewand reevaluate its consol i dat ion p roposal in the light of counter-proposals and object i ons put forward by the parties, if any. Inmaking its final determination the Board may amend its proposed consolidation by adort i ng the parties' responses inwhole or inpart, if it believes that they woul d bet ter serve the col lect ive bargai ni ng process; or t he Board may reject such responses and effect uat e the consolidation as proposed.
Decision No. 68-74 5. Docket No. RB-40B-73 Appropriate Unit [n the instant case, after preliminary consideration of the posi tions of the parties, as set forth at he hearing, the Board of Cert ification instructed Di rector of Rf'presentation McNamara to explore with the part ies al ternat ive possibilities which would result in t he reduction of the number of appropriate bargai ning units . During such discussion~ the par ties agreed on the following consol idat i.onse A. Cert ificat ion No. 36-71, cOHering Demol i t ion Inspector and Senior Demolition Inspector, with Certi-fi cat i on 9 NYC DLNo. 28, coveri nq Supervising Demolition Inspf'ctor; B. Cert ificat ion MR-9/ 65, covering Wat ershed Inspector, withCerti -ficati on CWR-lll/67, coveri ng Water Pl ant Operator . Insof ar as the foregoi ng proposals also have me rit , and would serve t o promote the col lect ive bargaining ~rocess at t his time, we hereby adopt them, with the proviso, however, that the Board may i n future advan ce ot her proposals for fur ther consolidations affect ing these units.
DecisionNo. 68-74 6. Docket No. Ril-40il-73 o R D E R Pursuant to the powers vested in the Board of Certificationby the NewYork City Collective Bargaining Law, it i s hereby ORDERED that CertificationNo. 9 NYCDL No. 28 and Cer t i fi cat ion No. 36-71 be and the same hereby are, combined and consolidated so as to constitute one bargai ni ng unit, and, with respect to such consol i dated uni t , it is hereby CERTIFIEDthat Local 121~, Di st r ict Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, is the exclusive representative for the pur poses of collective bargai ni ng of all employees in the consolidated unit, to wit: Demolition Inspector, Senior Demol ition Inspector , and Supervising Demolit i on Inspector employed by the City of NewYork and related pUblic empl oyers SUbject to the jurisdictionof the Board of Certification, and, further, SUbject to existing contracts, i f any, covering any or all of said empl oyees; and it i s furt her ORDEREDthat Certifications MR-9/65 and CWR-l l l/67 be, and the same hereby are, combined and consolidated so as to constitute one bargaining uni t , and, with respect to such consolidated unit, it is hereby
ยท. Decision No. 68-74 7. Docket No. RB-40B-73 CERTIFIEDthat Local 1414, District Counci l 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, is the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargainLng of all employees in the consolidatedunit, t o wit: Watershed Inspector and Water Plant Operator empl oyed by the City of New York and related public empl oyers subject to the j~risdiction of the Board of Cert ifi cat i on, and, further , subject to exi st i ng contracts, if any, covering any or all of sai d employees . DATED: NewYork, N.Y. December 2, 1974. ARVID ANDERSON Ch airman ERICJ . SCHMERTZ Me mb e r WALTERL. EISENBERG Me mb e r
Decision No. 68-74 Docket No. RB-40B-73 The titl es and title code numbers of the employees affected by this decision are as follows: Uni t A Demo{l~on Inspector 32415 S enior Demolition Inspector 32435 Supervising Demolition Inspector 32455 Uni t B Watershed Inspector 34415 Water Plant Operator 9 1010
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.