11_7_1975_PERB_BD_DecisionsOCR.pdf: 107 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

New York State Public Employment Relations Board

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from November 7, 1975

State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from May 13, 1974

11_3_1975_PERB_BD_DecisionsOCR.pdf: 50 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from November 3, 1975

5_13_1975_PERB_BD_DecisionsOCR.pdf: 46 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from May 13, 1975

State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from November 21, 1975

State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from August 19, 1975

11_21_1975_PERB_BD_DecisionsOCR.pdf: 69 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

8_19_1975_PERB_BD_DecisionsOCR.pdf: 75 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Board Decisions - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
11-3-1975 
State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions 
from November 3, 1975 
New York State Public Employment Relations Board 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbdecisions 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board 
(PERB) at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Board Decisions - NYS PERB by an 
authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-
dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from November 
3, 1975 
Keywords 
NY, NYS, New York State, PERB, Public Employee Relations Board, board decisions, labor disputes, labor 
relations 
Comments 
This document is part of a digital collection provided by the Martin P. Catherwood Library, ILR School, 
Cornell University. The information provided is for noncommercial educational use only. 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbdecisions/51 
STATE OF NEW YORK 
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 
In the Matter of the Petition for Certification and/or 
Decertification filed by 
PEF: A FEDERATION OF AFFILIATED UNIONS, 
-and-
Petitioner, 
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, 
'" " " Employer, 
-and-
THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., 
Intervenor. 
BOARD DECISION ON MOTION 
CASE NO. C-1281 
On October 21, 1975, the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (CSEA) 
moved this Board to reverse a determination of our "Director of Public 
Employment Practices and Representation, directing that an election be held 
between the parties hereto in the Professional, Scientific and Technical 
Services Unit...." and "For an order directing the Director to comply with the 
rules of the Public Employment Relations Board in that he make a finding that 
the within petition is supported or not supported by a showing of interest of 
at least thirty (30%) percent of the employees in the Unit,...." The deter-
mination of the Director complained of was contained in a letter written by him 
on October 17, 1975. 
The Office of Employee Relations of the State of New York responded by 
letter dated October 23, 1975. In that letter it stated that it takes no 
position with regard to the merits of the CSEA motion. That same day, PEF 
also responded and urged us to deny the CSEA motion. 
After considering the motion and the positions of the parties, at our 
meeting of October 24, 1975 we determined that the motion should be denied. 
Because time was of the essence, the parties were immediately notified of 
this decision and were advised that an opinion would follow. 
7 
Board - C-1281 -2 
OPINION 
Section 201.4(c) of our Rules states: "The determination by the Director 
as to the timeliness of a showing of interest and of its numerical sufficiency 
is a ministerial act and will not be reviewed by the Board." This practice 
has been affirmed in a court action (Matter of Civil Service Employees 
Association v. Helsby, 63 Misc. 2d 403 [Supreme Court, Suffolk County, 1970]) 
by a State court. The State court quoted, with approval, the language of a 
Federal court decision refusing to countenance litigation of a question in-
volving a sufficiency of a showing of interest because "it is the election... 
which decides the substantive issue whether or not the [union] or another labor 
organization, if any, actually represents a majority of the employees involved 
in a representation case." 
CSEA's motion papers argue that the Director violated the Rules of this 
Board in directing an election because "he has not determined that PEF has a 
1 
thirty (30%) percent showing of interest...." 
1 The Director's letter to the parties indicates that he was not able to 
determine with precision the percentage of the showing of interest because 
the number of eligible employees in' the negotiating unit, which is the 
denominator of the equation, is uncertain. He wrote: 
"In support of its petition, PEF submitted a substantial showing of 
interest comprised of timely authorization cards and petitions 
executed by employees clearly within the PS&T Unit. The purpose 
of PERB's showing of interest requirement is to determine whether 
its resources should be devoted to the processing of a petition; 
in other words, a petition should be processed only if there is 
substantial support for its filing. In the instant case, my pro-
longed investigation has revealed the existence of such support. 
"It is fair to prognosticate that a continuation of the investigation 
of the showing of interest would require much additional time and 
effort. In that event, the question of which, if any, of the competing 
employee organizations is the choice of a majority of the employees in 
the PS&T unit would not be resolved by a date sufficiently in advance of 
the expiration of the existing contract so as to allow a reasonable 
period of time for negotiations." 
Board - C-1281 -3 
We decline to deal with that question at this time. The policy of this 
State as articulated by the Legislature is that representation cases should 
be quickly processed to their conclusion without interruption for litigation 
of intermediate determinations. In 1971 the Legislature amended the statutory 
provisions providing for judicial review [CSL Section 213(b)] to specify that 
"[o]rders of the board or its agents made pursuant to subdivisions one and two 
of section two hundred seven of this chapter [i.e., intermediate orders in 
representation proceedings] shall be reviewable only in a proceeding brought 
under article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules to review an 
order of the board made pursuant to subdivision three of section two hundred 
seven of this chapter [i.e., final orders in representation proceedings]." 
Two years earlier, when the Legislature amended the Taylor Law to pre-
vent improper employer and employee practices, it specified [CSL Section 205.5(d" ] 
"The pendency of proceedings under this paragraph shall not be used as the basis 
to delay or interfere with determination of representation status pursuant to 
section two hundred seven of this article or with collective negotiations." Our 
own Rules have also been amended to expedite representation cases in a manner 
that is directly relevant to the matter before us. When first adopted in 1967, 
our Rules provided, at Section 201.6(h): "After receipt of the report and 
recommendations of the investigator or the hearing officer, or upon consent 
of the parties, the Director of Representation may direct an election, recommend 
dismissal of the petition, or otherwise dispose of the matter. The direction 
of an election may be appealed to the Board within seven days thereafter." 
(Emphasis supplied). The underscored language of the above quote was eliminated 
when our Rules were amended in 1969. Since then, the Rule [now Section 
201.9(c)(3)] reads: "Unless expressly authorized by the Board, rulings by 
the Director or by a trial examiner shall not be appealed directly to the 
Board - C-1281 
-4 
Board, but shall be considered by the Board when it considers such exceptions 
to the decision of the Director as may be filed." 
Consistent with our own policies and with the policies inherent in the 
legislation, we decline to authorize consideration of the intermediate deter-
mination of the Director. The motion of CSEA is denied. 
Dated: Albany, New York 
November 3, 1975 
Je'setfn R. Crowley 
?red L. Denson 
il£\ JTiCM 


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&amp;context=perbdecisions

State of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from November 7, 1975

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

DigitalCommons@ILR

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

DigitalCommons@ILR