DC37, et. Al v. City, 6 OCB 39 (BOC 1970) [Decision No. 39-70 (Cert.)] OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOARD OF CERTIFICATION DECISION NO. 39-70 In the Matter of DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, -and-DOCKET NO. RU-141-69 LOCAL 30, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, Intervener -and-THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND RELATED PUBLIC EMPLOYERS In the Matter of LOCAL 15, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO -and-DOCKET NO. RU-158-70 THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND RELATED PUBLIC EMPLOYERS DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO., herein called D.C. 37, filed its petition herein on October 20, 1969 (Docket No. RU-141-69). On November 21, 1969, Local 30, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 30, applied to intervene therein. On January 30, 1970, Local 15, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL CIO, herein called Local 15, filed its petition (Docket No. RU-158-70). Upon consideration of its investigation, and after due deliberation, the Board of Certification issues the following Decision and Direction of Election:
DECISION NO. 39-70 DOCKET NOS. RU-141-69, RU-158-70 2 I. Undisputed Matters It is undisputed, and we find and conclude, that in fact and within the meaning of the New York City Collective Bargaining Law, Locals 15 and 30 and D.C. 37 are public employee organizations; and that a question or controversy concerning representation exists. II. The Appropriate Unit D.C. 37 seeks certification as the collective bargaining representative of all Oilers employed by the City of New York and related public employers under the jurisdiction of the Board of Certification. Local 15 seeks certification as the collective bargaining representative of "Oilers (Portable).” Locals 15 and 30 contend that "Oiler (Portable) and Oiler (Stationary) . . perform different duties and functions [and] that it would be inappropriate to combine these titles in an overall unit." The City of New York urges a single unit of all Oilers. On April 14, 1964, the New York City Civil Service Commission abolished the title of Oiler (except for certain incumbents) and created the titles Oiler (Portable) and Oiler (Stationary). [Resolution 64-31]. In February, 1970, however, the Court of Appeals vacated the reclassification as arbitrary (Morrison v. Hoberman, decided 2/20/70), and the City Civil Service Commission thereupon re-established the single title of Oiler. We find and conclude, therefore, that all Oilers constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, in fact and within the meaning of the New York City Collective Bargaining Law.
DECISION NO. 39-70 DOCKET NOS. RU-141-69, RU-158-70 3 III.Representative Status Locals 15 and 30 have expressed a desire to appear on the ballot jointly. Accordingly, we shall conduct an election by secret ballot among the employees in the appropriate unit to determine whether or not they desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining, and shall place the names of District Council 37, and of Locals 15 and 30 jointly, on the ballot. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the Board of Certification by the New York City Collective Bargaining Law, it is hereby DIRECTED, that as part of the investigation authorized by the Board, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted under the supervision of the Board of Certification or its agents, at a time, place, and during hours to be fixed by the Board, among the Oilers employed by the City of New York and related public employers subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Certification, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election (other than those who have voluntarily quit or who have been discharged for cause before the date of election), to determine whether they desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by D.C. 37, by Locals 15 and 30 jointly, or by neither. DATED: New York, N.Y. May 28 , 1970. ARVID ANDERSON C h a i r m a n ERIC J. SCHMERTZ 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.