Collective Agreement Computer Systems
The union claimed that NYCHA violated nycCBL § 12-306 (a) (4) and (5) by unilaterally imposing its practice of granting two hours of apology in December of each year. NYCHA argued that it did not violate the NYCCBL because it did not cancel the practice, but rather asked employees to waive the time excused. The board found that NYCHA unilaterally brought the practice to a declaration in violation of paragraphs 12 to 306 (a) and (4) of NYCCBL, but that it did not violate the provisions of Article 12-306 (a) (5) because the agreement between the parties was not in status quo. As a result, the petition was partially accepted and partially rejected. The provisions of the collective agreement are implemented by the parties within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of signature. NYCHA challenged the conciliation of the union`s complaint, saying nyCHA failed to provide grievants with performance reviews as well as tasks and standards. She argued that the complaint had no connection to the parties` collective agreement, since neither the collective agreement nor the NYCHA Personnel Manual required the issuance of performance evaluations or tasks and standards. The Committee found that there is a link between the union`s demand and the collective agreement and the personnel manual. Accordingly, NYCHA`s claim against the capacity to arbitrate was dismissed and the Union`s request for arbitration was granted. Challenging the reconciliation of two complaints, the City asserted that it had violated the parties` collective agreement by not providing for ordinary procedural rights when Grievants terminated. The city argued that the trial periods of the two Grievants had been extended in accordance with the staff regulations and that there was therefore no link between the dismissals and the collective agreement.
As the collective agreement excluded the staff rules from the scope of the arbitration procedure, the Committee found that there was no link between the right of the trade union and the collective agreement. As a result, the city`s requests for arbitration were accepted and the Union`s requests for arbitration were rejected. Leeba filed a petition to represent the health officers and associated animal health officers, currently represented by CWA. The city argued that since the memorandum of understanding between the city and the CWA was not ratified, the petition did not arrive at an inappropriate time under the treaty rule. . . .