SUPREME COURT : NEW YORK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM : PART I ------------------------------------------------ x In the Matter of the Application of UNIFORMED FORCES COALITION, INC., Index No. 10330/85 Petitioner, For a judgement pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR -against-OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL LABOR RELATIONS, Respondents. ------------------------------------------------ x HAROLD BAER, JR.: Petitioner , Uniformed Forces Coalition ("UFC"), concedes in this, Article 78 proceeding that its challenge to the determinations by the respondent Board of Collective Bargaining (“BCC”), declaring an impasse in the bargaining has been rendered moot by the collective bargaining agreements ultimately entered into between UFC and the City of New York. Turning to the remaining issues, BCB's decision directing UFC to participate in a consolidated procedure for resolving the bargaining impasse was not arbitrary or capricious under all of the circumstances. The test is whether the determination is without foundation or reason. Trump Equitable Fifth Ave. v. Gliedman, 28 AD2d 487 (1st Dept. 1984). This is not the case here, especially in light of the decision by the UFC constitutent members to bargain with the City as one, before impasse. In addition, BCB's refusal to stay the impasse procedures pending the charges brought by the UFC alleging improper employer bargaining, practices, was neither arbitrary, capricious or illegal. Section 205(5)(d) of the New York Civil Service Law provides that "... the pendency of (improper practice]
2 proceedings ... shall not be used as the basis to delay or interfere ... with collective negotiations ... and no justifiable reason to impose such a delay has been proffered to BCB or this court. See Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n. v. BCB, N.Y.L.J., January 2, 1976, p. 6 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.Co.) Accordingly, the application is denied and the petition is dismissed. This constitutes the decision and judgment of the court. DATED: APRIL 2, 1986 J. S C.
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.