PEP, February 2008: Neutral board disciplines city Parks Department

NOTICE
To all employees pursuant to the decision and order of The Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York and in order to effectuate the policies of the New York City Collective Bargaining laW.

We hereby notify that in the matter of District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. The Department of Parks and Recreation and the City of New York, Decision No. B-37-2007 (Docket No. BCB-2515-05):

The City of New York and the Department of Parks and Recreation committed an improper practice by failing to bargain with District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO over the Department of Parks and Recreation’s unilateral implementation of a mediation program as an alternative disciplinary review procedure.

It is hereby:

Directed, that the Department of Parks and Recreation cease and desist from utilizing its alternative dispute resolution program as an alternative disciplinary review procedure until such time as the parties negotiate procedures for mediation as an alternative disciplinary review procedure;

Directed, that DPR shall post this Notice for no less than thirty days, at all locations used by the Union for written communication with unit employees.
This Notice must remain conspicuously posted for 30 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
________________________________________________

The BCB ordered the Parks Dept. to post this notice and stop using a mediation program that violated the collective bargaining pact with DC 37.

The neutral Board of Collective Bargaining has ordered the Dept. of Parks and Recreation to stop using its unilaterally created mediation program as an alternative to the disciplinary process.

BCB’s December decision on DC 37’s improper practice charge said the 2005 policy violated the city Collective Bargaining Law because it was not negotiated with the union.
The board ordered Parks to post an official notice informing employees of the decision at all worksites for 30 days. The notice is reprinted at left.

Management summons members
“A Parks Supervisor, a member of Local 1508, was summoned to the Mediation Center,” recalled Blue Collar Division Council Rep Bob Gervasi. “So he would not be violating a direct order, I told him to attend but upon arrival to notify management that he would not participate in the process.”

When Blue Collar Council Rep Yolanda Johnson walked into a meeting of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, she found nine members of locals 983, 1505, 1507 and 1508 and Job Training Participants who had been summoned by management as “voluntary” participants in the new mediation program.

Any information from employees who participated in mediation sessions could have led to disciplinary charges.

The members had received strongly worded letters from Parks management leading them to believe that their onlyoption was to attend. The letter was a red flag for the reps, and Johnson asked that the meeting be adjourned while she consulted DC 37 and conferred with the members.

“Empowering experience?”
In a letter to the union, an overly ambitious Parks Dept. Equal EmploymentOpportunity Officer called the new Mediation Center “an alternative to rigid discipline” with a successful track record. He claimed the center is an empowering experience for employees.

But the union wasn’t buying what this manager was selling.

While EEOC Officers investigate and make recommendations on allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment, “It’s not their job to handle disciplinary problems,” Gervasi explained.

Improper Practice
A few months later, in November 2005, the DC 37 Legal Dept. filed an improper practice petition with BCB on behalf of the members in the Parks Dept.

“Management did not negotiate with the union, they just put the policy in place,” said DC 37 Blue Collar Director José Sierra.

“The locals were against this from the beginning. This manager tried to dispense with the disciplinary policy in the contract and make himself judge, jury and executioner,” he said.

“We argued successfully that while it is an employer’s right to take disciplinary action, establishing an alternative to the existing process must be negotiated with the union,” said DC 37 General Counsel Eddie Demmings.