OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING In the Matter of the Impasse IMPASSE PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS between THE CITY OF NEW YORK (I-10-68) (JUDICIAL CONFERENCE) and SUPREME COURT UNIFORMED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION On August 6, 1968 the undersigned were designated by the Office of Collective Bargaining as members of an Impasse Panel to assist the parties in resolving their dispute. The designation and the activities and operations of the Panel were based upon the provisions of Chapter 54 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York known as the “New York City Collective Bargaining Law.” Due notice thereof having been given to al affected parties, hearings were held before the full Panel on Friday, September 27, 1968 at the premises of the Office of the Director of Labor Relations of the City of New York. At that hearing, all parties appeared or were represented by counsel. Evidence and argument with respect to the issues in dispute
were presented to the Panel and heard by all of its members. A reporter’s verbatim transcript of the proceedings was made available to the Panel. Subsequently, on October 31, 1968;;, a supplementary conference was held at the offices of the said Director of Labor Relations of the City of New York which was attended by the Chairman of the Impasse Panel and representatives of the parties. The following appearance were noted in this case: For the Supreme Court Uniformed Officers Association: Frank Prial, Esquire, Attorney John James, President Milton Treasurer George Robinson, Vice President, For The City of New York: Joseph Mazur, Esquire, Office of Labor Relations Benjamin Malcolm, Office of Labor Relations For the Judicial Conference: George J. Levine, Planning Officer John J. Sheehan, Associate Personnel Analyst The impasse in bargaining in this case involving the terms and provisions of an agreement for the period July 1, 1966 to June 30, 1968 and the job titles of Chief Court Attendant and Supervising Court Officer -2-
in the First Judicial District of the Judicial Conference of the State of New York and Chief Court Attendant, Supervising Court Officer, Court Attendant, and Assistant Special Deputy Clerk in the Second and Eleventh Judicial District, to the extent and in the manner set forth below. Recommendations of Panel After the full consideration of the record made in this case and full consultation with the representatives of the parties, the Panel hereby RECOMMENDS that the impasse in bargaining be settled, without delay, by the parties entering into a collective labor agreement with the following features: -3-
I. Wages and Service Increases A. Chief Court Attendant (First Judicial District) (Reference is made here to persons who were actively employed under the title of Chief Court Attendant or its predecessor title) 1. Effective July 1, 1966, a general increase of $575. per annum. 2. Effective July 1, 1966, a service increase of $450. per annum for those persons who completed one year of service in this or predecessor title during the period July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966; or $225. per annum for those persons who completed less than one year of such service but who did complete six months of such service within such period of time. 3. Effective July 1, 1967 , a general increase of $575. per annum. 4. Effective July 1, 1967, a service increase of $450. per annum for those persons who completed one year of service in this or the predecessor title during the period -4-
July 19, 1966 to June 30, 1967; or $225. per annum for those persons who completed less than one year of such service but who did complete six months of such service within such period of time. B. Supervising Court Officer and Chief Court Attendant (Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts) (Reference is made here to persons who were actively employed under the title or Supervising Court Officer (or its predecessor title) in the First, Second or Eleventh District of the Judicial Conference and, in the Second and Eleventh Districts, persons who were actively engaged under the title of Court Attendant or Assistant Special Deputy Clerk and received the title of Supervising Court Officer on July 1, 1966) 1. Effective July 1, 1966 a general increase Of $635. per annum. 2. Effective July 1, 1966, a service increase of $500. per annum for those persons who completed one year of service in this or -5-
the predecessor title during the period July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966. or $250. per annum for those persons who had completed six months of services in such titles during such period. (Minimum appointment rate for this position shall be $11,000. and maximum rate shall be $12,500. per annum, effective July 1, 1966.) 3. Effective July 1, 1967, a general increase of $635. per annum. 4. Effective July 1, 1967, a service increase of $500. per annum. for those persons who completed one year of service in this or the predecessor title during the period July 1, 1966 to June 30, 1967, or $250. per annum for those persons who had completed six months of services in such titles during such period. 5. Minimum appointment rate for this position shall be $12,500. per annum and maximum rate shall be $14,500. per annum effective July 1, 1967. -6-
C. The salary rate as set forth above shall not serve as a bar to the full implementation of the general or the service increases. II. Miscellaneous With respect to all persons affected by the general and service increases referred to above, provisions as to the following should be incorporated in the collective agreement: A. Uniform Allowance: The prorated annual allowance for uniforms shall be raised to $150., effective July 1, 1966 and to $175., effective July 1, 1967. B. Welfare Fund : Effective July 1, 1966 -$ 60.00 Effective July 1, 1967 -$100.00 Effective January 1, 1968 -$120.00 C. Promotional Guarantee: $650. when promoted into the title of Supervising Court Officer. -7-
III.The collective agreement shall be for the term July 1, 1966 to June 30, 1968. Dated: New York City, N.Y. November 37, 1968 IMPASSE PANEL Peter Seitz, Chairman George Mintzer Mitchell M. Shipman -8-
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.