INXDE LFILED: NEWYORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 SUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATE,OFNEWYORK NEWYORKCOUNTY PRESENT: HON. JULIORODRIGUEZ, III THECITYOFNEWYORK; BILLDEBLASIO, asMayoroftheCity of NewYork; ROBERTW. LINN, asCommissioneroftheMayor’s Officeof Labor Relations; and, THEMAYOR’SOFFICEOF LABORRELATIONS, Petitioners, LAWENFORCEMENTEMPLOYEESBENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION(‘LEEBA”); KENNETHWYNDER, asPresident LEEBA; THEBOARDOFCOLLECTIVEBARGAININGOFTHE CITYOFNEWYORK; and, SUSANJ. PANEPENTO, asChair theBoardof CollectiveBargaining, Respondents. Thefollowingpapers, numberedI to 29, werereadonthisapplicationto/for Noticeof Petition-Affidavits Exhibits -AnsweringAffidavits-Exhibits Replying PetitionersCityofNewYork, Bill deBlasio, W. Linn, as Commissioner oftheMayor’sOfficeofLabor LaborRelationsseekanorderpursuanttoNewYorkCityAdministrativeCode§ adeterminationandorderoftheBoardofCollectiveBargaining(“BCB”)datedFebruary15, TheBCBdeterminationandorder directstheLawEnforcement Association (“LEEBA”) to 1) “cease and desist memorandumof agreement, datedMay 19, 2015; UnionofNorthAmerica, Local 1042, PayersandRoadBuildersDistrict NewYork”, 2) “signasuccessor unit agreement agreement, datedMay 19, 2015, by and betweenthe America, Local 1042, PayersandRoadBuildersDistrict 3) “post theattachednotice[describingtheBCBdeterminationj locationsitusesforwrittencommunicationswithitsunit FactsandBCBDetermination TheHighwaysand Sewers Inspectors’ Agreement (“MOA”)for2010to2018whiletheunit 45007812019 CITYOFNEWYORKvs. LAWENFORC~M~TEMPLOYEESBENEVOLENTASS’NNO. 450078/2019 12:56 PI~j INDEX NO. 450078/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2019 PART lASMOTION62EFM Justice MOTIONDATE 07/25/2019 MOTIONSEQ. NO. 001 of DECISIONANDORDER of V Article78/ DISMISS No(s) ___________ 1 __ -_ 1 _ 8 ____________ No(s) ___________ 1 _ 9 _ -_ 2 __ 6 ____________ No(s) ___________ 2 __ 7 _ -_ 2 __ 9 _____________ asMayor oftheCityofNewYork, Robert Relations, andtheMayor’sOfficeof 12-308enforcing 2018. EmployeesBenevolent its efforts to renegotiate the terms of the by andbetweentheLaborers’ International Council andtheCityof incorporatingthetermsofthememorandumof Laborers’ International Unionof North Council andtheCityofNewYork”, and for nolessthan30days at all members”. bargainingunit enteredintoa Memorandumof wasrepresentedbyLaborers’ International Page1 of6
1~LED: NEWYORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2019 ~NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 UnionofNorthAmerica(“LILTNA”). TheMOAwasratifiedbythebargainingunit 2015; LIUNAexecutedtheMOAonMay19, 2015. TheMOAsets relevant pay rates for theperiodfrom2010to “[e]xcept asprovidedforinSection7, nopartytothisagreement demands duringthe term2010-2018 MOAor Agreement”. Section 7 states, inrelevant part: “Nothingcontained precludethepartiesfromtheircontinuingdiscussionstoidentify, initiativesthat will generateworkplacesavings, ensure the provision of essential services, compensationfortheworkforce. Thepartiesmust nolater than24monthsafter thedateofratification[April discussionswasthereforeApril 9, 2017. Subsequent toratificationandexecutionoftheMOA, bargaining unit, on October 6, 2015, LawEnforcement (“LEEBA”)wascertifiedasthebargainingrepresentativefortheHighwayandSewersInspectors’ bargainingunit. OnFebruary 15, 2018, morethansixmonthsafterthedeadlinetofinishdiscussionsunder the MOA, the Board of CollectiveBargainingissued “improperpracticepetition”against LEEBA. TheBoardfoundthat bargainingbyfailingtoexecuteasuccessorunitagreement (seeSection7, supra) andbyattemptingtorenegotiatecertaineconomicterms. Initsanswer tothepetition, respondent successorunitagreement orpostnoticeofthedetermination, datedFebruary15, 2018(LEEBAAnswer at ¶19). Parties’ Positions Petitionersseekenforcement oftheBCBdeterminationdatedFebruary directedrespondentLEEBAtoceaseeffortstorenegotiatethetermsoftheMOA, unit agreement, andpost anoticeofthedecision. nolegal justificationforitsconduct in, first, failingtoexecuteasuccessorunitagreement totheMOA, and, second, refusingtocomplywiththeBCBdeterminatiçn. Respondent LEEBAopposesthepetition, “clarityonthemechanismastohowamembercanadvancetoMaximumpay”; asuccessor unit agreement dueto“outstandingissuesthat respect totheBCBproceedinganddecisionspecifically,respondentLEEBAmaintainsthat“issues offact wereraisedinRespondentsAnswer totheImproper that thematter shouldberemanded“toBCBsothat full considerationofthefactscanbefairlyadjudicated.” 450078/2019 CITYOFNEWYORKvs. LAWENFORCEMENTEMPLOYEESBENEVOLENTASSN 2 of 12:56~ INDEX NO. 450078/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2019 onApril 9, 2018 andprovidesthat shall makeadditional economic duringthe negotiations for the Successor Unit inthis current Agreement shall review, recommendanddevelop maximizethepotential oftheCityworkforceand while at the same time providing increased concludeall discussionsregardingthisSection 9, 2015]”. Thedeadlinetoconclude andfollowinganelectionbythe Employees Benevolent Association a decisiononthe Cityof NewYork’s LEEBAengagedinbadfaith within24monthspursuanttotheMOA LEEBAadmitsthat it hasrefusedtoexecutethe asdirectedbytheBCBdetermination 15, 2018, which signasuccessor Petitionerscontendthat respondent LEEBAhas pursuant arguingthat theirbargainingconduct—seeking refusingtoexecute wereunresolved”—wasproper. With PracticePetition” beforeBCB, and afull andfairhearingcanbeconducted, and Page2of 6 6
~~LED: NEWYORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RespondentsBCBandSusanJ. Penepento, petition, contendingthat respondent LEEBAisprecluded, timelimitationset forthinAdminCode§ 12-308(a) determination. Additionally, respondentsBCBandPenepentostressthat goodfaithincludestheobligation“toexecuteuponrequest agreedterms, andtotakesuchstepsnecessarytoimplement 306[c] [5]; seeAdminCode§ 12-306[b] [2] goodfaith]; AdminCode§ 12-309[a] [4] [BCB“shall andremedyimproper.. .publicemployeeorganizationpractices]). Oral Argument Thepartiesappearedbeforethiscourt fororal iteratedthepositionsoutlinedintheirpapers. Ofnote, appearedonhisownbehalf. Additionally, hestatedthat itscounsel, Mr. Stuart Salles, Esq. Thecourt, beingnotifiedbyMr. was inthe’ courthouse, summonedMr. Salles describedtheamicabledissolutionofMr. SallesrepresentationofLEEBAduetoadisagreement over LEEBA’sgeneral legal strategy(outsidethescopeofthisapplication). that he and LEEBAintendedto relyuponthe proceeding, whichweresubmittedpriortodissolutionoftheattorney-client ApplicableLaw TheBoardofCollectiveBargainingis establishedbyChapter Charter (“Charter”). Section 1173 of the Charter bargaining... shall have such powers and duties bargainingasshall beprescribedbylaw.” NewYorkCityAdministrativeCode(“AdminCode”) “Theboardofcollectivebargaining...shall disagreement concerningthe interpretation [Admin Code Title 12, Chapter 3, “NYCCBL”],toconsidersuchdisagreement andthepublic; (2)... tomakeafinal determinationastowhetheramatter thescopeofcollectivebargaining; (3).. . tomakeafinal adisputeis aproper subject for grievanceandarbitrationprocedureestablished pursuant to[AdminCode] section12-312...; publicemployer andpublicemployeeorganizationpractices, listedin[AdminCode] section12-306[includingdiscrimination, tobargainingoodfaith, orbreachingthedutyoffairrepresentation];.. hearingsandcompel theattendanceofwitnessesandtheproductionofdocuments”. 3 of f~kI~A~vw~v..~. ,.wtMcnD(~M~tdT~MP~flVFIt~RFNFVfl~~NTA~’N 12:56 p~ INDEX NO. 450078/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2019 as Chair ofBCB(“Penepento”), support the byvirtueofexpirationofthe30-day (1), fromappealingthemeritsoftheBCB thedutytobargainin awrittendocument embodyingthe theagreement” (AdminCode§ 12-[improper practiceincludesrefusal tobargainin havethepower,andduty...(4) toprevent argument onJuly25, 2019. Thepartiesre Mr. KennethWynder, President ofLEEBA, LEEBAhadceaseditsrelationshipwith Wynderthat Mr. Salles, Esq., to appear. Messrs. Wynder and Salles, Esq., Mr. Wynder stated papers submittedby Mr. Salles, Esq., inthis relationship. 54oftheNewYorkCity provides that “the board of collective withrespect to labor relations and collective § 12-309provides: havethepowerandduty: (1) [up]on.. or application of the provisions of “The Collective Bargaining Law” or andreport itsconclusiontotheparties iswithin determinationastowhether (4) toprevent andremedyimproper assuchpracticesare coercion, refusal . (6) tohold 6 Paae3of 6
[~tLED: NEWYORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 AdminCode§ 12-308providesthat: “Anyorder oftheboardofcollectivebargaining...shall [CPLRArticle78] andrulesuponpetitionfiledbyanaggrievedpartywiththirty daysafter servicebyregisteredorcertifiedmail party, and (2) enforceableby the supreme petitionoftheboardofcollectivebargaining...oranyaggrievedparty.” 61 RCNY1-07 (b) (4) provides, inrelevant part, allegingthat. . .apublic employee organizationor improper practice in violationof [AdminCode] determinationandremedial order.” Pursuant to61 RCNY1-07(b) petition] decidethedisputeonthepapersfiled, held, maydirect ahearingbeforeatrial examiner, asit deemsappropriateandproper.” StandardofReviewandLimitationsPeriod Generally, uponjudicial reviewofaBCBdeterminationpursuanttoCPLRarticle78, determinationoftheBoardofCollectiveBargaining... capriciousor anabuseof discretion, as theBoardis authorizedtomakespecifieddeterminations” (NYCDept. 650[1996]). ThecourtsdefertotheBoard’sexpertiseinapplyingandinterpretingtheprovisions oftheNYCCBL, solongasthedeterminationisreasonable. ofNewYork, 22AD3d279[1st Dept 2005]; seeMatter Dept 1980] affd53NY2d821 [1981] [“anadministrativeagency’sconstructionandinterpretation of its ownregulations and of the statute under weight”]). Whereapartyseeksenforcement ofaBCBdeterminationpursuant 308, andthe30-dayperiodforappeal hasexpired, areuntimely(UniformedFirefightersAss‘nofGreater Bargaining, Bd. ofCollectiveBargaining, 163 determinationsmust besought within30daysafter Discussion Petitionersinthisspecial proceedingapplypursuant filedJanuary24, 2019, toenforcetheBCBdeterminationenteredFebruary 217(1); AdminCode§ 12-308). TheBCBdeterminationandorderwasnot totheextentthatrespondentschallengethesubstanceofthedetermination,respondent’sobjections areuntimely(UniformedFirefightersAss‘nofGreater Bargaining, Bd. ofCollectiveBargaining, 163AD2d251 Becausethisisanenforcement proceedingcommencedafterthe30-dayperiodforreview ofthemeritsofaBCBfinal determination(AdminCode§ 45007812019 CITYOFNEWYORKvs. LAWENFORCEMENTEMPLOYEESBENEVOLENTASS’N 4 of 12:56 p~ INDEX NO. 450078/2019 RECEIVEDNYSCEF: 09/17/2019 be(1) reviewableunder ofacopyofsuchorderuponsuch court ina special proceeding, upon that “apublic employer may filea petition its agents has engaged inor is engagingin § 12-306...and request that [BCB] issue a RCNY1-07(c) (8), BCB“may[upona61 maydirect that oral argument be ormaytakesuchotherdispositionofthematter “[t]he maynot beupset unlessit isarbitraryand theneutral adjudicativeagencystatutorily ofSanitationvMacDonald, 87NY2d (District Council 37, AFL-CIOvCity ofJ-IerzogvJoy, 74AD2d372, 375[1st whichit functions is entitled to the greatest toAdminCode§ 12-objectionstothesubstanceofthedetermination N.YvNewYorkCityOff OfCollective AD2d251 [1st Dept 1990] [“Reviewof BCB serviceofthefinal order”]). toAdminCode§ 12-308, bypetition 15, 2018(seeCPLR appealed. Therefore, NYvNewYorkCityOff OfCollective [1St Dept 1990]). 12-308 [a] [1]), thecourt is “not at Page4of 6 6
1~’ILED: NEWYORK COUNTY CLERK 09 ~N?SCEFDQC. NO. 30 libertytoconsider ‘eitherthedeterminativeortheremedial YorkStatePub. Empl. RelationsBdvCountyofWestchester, citingMatterofNewYorkStatePub. Empi. RelationsBdvBoardofEduc. NY2d86, 91; compareCivil ServiceLaw§ 213withAdminCode§ municipal enforcement provisions]). . . Inanyevent, thiscourt finds, uponareviewoftherecord, not arbitraryandcapriciousoranabuseofdiscretion. tothe BCBdetermination—namely, 1) that BCBdidnot determinationand2) that itsdutyoffairrepresentationprecludesitsexecutionofthepreviously agreed-tosuccessor unit agreement—arewithout renderadeterminationon.submittedpapersandwithoutholdingahearing, 1-07[c] [8] [BCB“maydecidethedisputeonthepapersfiled, held, maydirect ahearingbeforeatrial examiner, asit deemsappropriateandproper.”]). Second, theHighwaysandSewersInspectors’ unit ratifiedtheMOAonApril 9, 2015, andtheir 2015. Theunit’sdecisiontoreplaceitsrepresentativewithLEEBAdidnotalterthetermstowhich theunit was bound. TheMOAprovidedthetermsoftheagreement economicissues, andtheonlyremainingitemtobenegotiatedwasdescribedinMOAsection7, saiditembeing, under theMOA, non-economicinnature. negotiatemechanismsformaximumpayconstitutedanefforttoavoidtheunit’sobligationsunder theMOA. Similarly, LEEBA’sattemptsto. continuenegotiationafter upon24-monthperiodfor reachingagreement obligationsundertheMOA. V Finally, BCBis empowered to “to prevent organizationpractices” (AdminCode § 12-309 datedFebruary15, 2018, rationallyaddressedtheissuesbeforeit, directives. . . 45007812019 CITYOFNEWYORKvs. LAWENFORCEMENTEMPLOYEESBENEVOLENTASS’N 5 of RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/20.19 provisionsofthe[BCB] orders” (New 280AD2d849, 850[3dDept 2001] ofCityofBuffalo, 39 12-308[equivalent stateand . V that theBCBdeterminationwas Moreover, respondent LEEBA’sobjections holdhearingprior to renderingits merit. First, BCBisexplicitlyempoweredto ifitsoelects(61RCNY maydirect that oral argument be ormaytakesuchotherdispositionofthematter bargaining representativeexecutedtheMOAonMay19, inwholewithrespect to Consequently, LEEBA’seffortsto expirationoftheagreed constituteda violationof thebargainingunit’s and remedy improper.. .public employee [a] [4]), andtheBCBdeterminationandorder includingthroughitsconcluding Page5of 6 6
[~LED: NEWYORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 Accordingly, it isORDEREDthat thepetitionisgranted; ORDEREDthat thedecisionoftheNewYorkCityBoardofCollectiveBargainingdated February15, 2018, isconfirmedandenforcedinall ORDEREDthat petitionersshall serveacopyofthisorder respondents, theClerkoftheCourt (60CentreStreet, Clerk’sOffice(60CentreStreet, Room119), within20days; ORDEREDthat respondent LawEnforcement complywiththedecisionandorderoftheNewYorkCityBoardofCollectiveBargainingdated February15, 2018, byNovember 1,2019. Anyargument or requestedrelief not expressly consideredandisherebyexpresslyrejected. Thisconstitutesthedecisionandorderofthecourt. September 10, 2019 CHECKONE: X CASEDISPOSED X GRANTED DENIED APPLICATION: SETTLEORDER CHECKIFAPPROPRIATE: INCLUDESTRANSFER/REASSIGN 6 of A~flfl7OI’)fl4Q ,rrvr~cMC~AJVf~DL( I AWCM DtCMCMTCMDI 12:56 P~ INDEX NO. 450078/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2019 andit isfurther respects; andit isfurther withnoticeofentryuponall Room141B), andtheClerkoftheGeneral andit isfurther Employees Benevolent Associationshall addressedhereinhas nonetheless been HONJUL RODRIGUEZIII,JSC ~NON-Fl L OSITION GRANTEDINPART OTHER SUBMITORDER FIDUCiARYAPPOINTMENT REFERENCE 6 flV~~fl~MFU(~I ~MTA~q’N P~nD~nf I~
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.