DC37 v. City, 18 OCB 4 (BOC 1976) [Decision No. 4-76 (Cert.)] OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOARD OF CERTIFICATION --------------------------------X In the Matter of DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO DECISION NO. 4-76 -and-DOCKET NO. RU-534-75 THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND RELATED PUBLIC EMPLOYERS --------------------------------X DECISION AND ORDER On November 25, 1975, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, filed its petition herein, seeking to add, by accretion, the titles of Laborer (CETA) and Heavy Worker (CETA) to Certification CWR-17/67, presently covering the title of Laborer. The Office of Labor Relations of the City of New York does not object to the petitioned accretion of Laborer (CETA), but opposes that portion of the petition which requests the “title” of Heavy Worker (CETA), on the ground that the latter title “does not exist.” We agree with the parties in regard to the appropriateness of including the title of Laborer (CETA) in the requested unit. Our investigation shows that there are no employees serving in the “title” of Heavy Worker (CETA), and confirms the City’s allegation that this “title” does not exist. Accordingly, we shall grant the petition for the former title and deny it for the latter.
Decision No. 4-76 2 Docket No. RU-534-75 0 R D E R NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in the Board of Certification by the New York City Collective Bargaining Law, it is hereby ORDERED that so much of Case RU-534-75 as requests that the title of Heavy Worker (CETA) be added to Certification CWR-17/67 be, and the same hereby is denied; and it is further ORDERED that Certification CWR 17/67 be, and the same hereby is, amended to include the title of Laborer (CETA), subject to existing contracts, if any. DATED: New York, New York February 4, 1976 ARVID ANDERSON CHAIRMAN WALTER L. EISENBERG MEMBER ERIC J. SCHMERTZ MEMBER
Decision No. 4-76 Docket No. RU-534-75 The title and title code numbers of the employees affected by this decision are as follows: Laborer (CETA) 09443, 09464
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.