Public Employee Press

Court upholds Local 1549 arbitration victory

Union sees a pattern in city’s growing court challenges to arbiters’ awards

The New York State Supreme Court recently rejected another city attempt to cancel an arbitrator’s decision.

DC 37 sees the case as an example of an “alarming trend” emerging as the city increasingly seeks to vacate arbitration rulings that favor union members, said General Counsel Mary O’Connell.

The court denied the city’s petition March 27 and upheld the arbitrator’s ruling that the Human Resources Administration had violated the clerical contract by not posting hard copies of job vacancies.

“A benefit of belonging to a union is that we work together to protect members’ rights. This is a victory for all of us. When we stick together, we win,” said Local 1549 President Eddie Rodriguez.

After HRA failed on several occasions to post job openings as required by the contract, Arbitrator Marvin Feldman in June 2008 ordered the agency to transfer Clerical Associate 2 Barbara Bell to a Bronx job site within 30 days.

Bell wanted to work in the Bronx, but HRA continually posted job openings late or not at all, limited the postings to its internal Intranet Web site, and did not display hard copies. Division Director Ron Harris made several calls to HRA to effectuate a transfer, but management resisted. So Harris filed a grievance on Bell’s behalf, which Local 1549 Grievance Rep. Ernst Letemps and DC 37 attorney Tom Cooke took to impartial arbitration.

The arbitrator ordered the transfer, monitored the situation for 60 days and directed HRA to follow the contract by posting every job vacancy for at least four days before filling the position.

But in March, the city challenged the union victory by asking the court to overturn the decision, claiming that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority and added to the collective bargaining agreement by ordering and overseeing the transfer procedure.

“By moving to vacate the decision, the city was trying to prevent the arbitration award from becoming a precedent,” said Cooke. “It’s clear the arbitrator did not exceed his authority but simply upheld the member’s rights under the contract.”

“The union’s Legal Department will continue to address these issues to enforce our members’ rights under the collective bargaining agreements,” said O’Connell.