Creating new negotiating units
Erie County v PERB, Appellate Division, 247 A.D.2d 671
The Erie County v PERB case suggests that PERB has become more flexible regarding splitting sheriff’s department employees into separate collective bargaining units.
In Erie County Teamsters Local 264 represented a single large negotiating unit that included both Deputy Sheriff-criminal [“criminal deputies”] and Deputy Sheriff-officer [“officer deputies”] positions. The criminal deputies were primarily engaged in law enforcement activities while the “officer deputies” were assigned as guards at the County’s holding center and courts.
The Erie County Sheriff’s Police Benevolent Association [PBA] petitioned PERB seeking to establish a separate negotiating unit for the criminal deputies.
Ultimately PERB approved the establishment of this new “fragmented” unit for criminal deputies and certified the PBA as the exclusive negotiating representative for the new unit. In so doing, PERB reversed a finding by its Director of Public Employment Practices and Representation that “a separate and distinct law enforcement community of interest ... had not been established.”
The County and Local 264 appealed in an effort to have PERB’s determination [26 PERB 3069] annulled.
The Appellate Division said that although PERB had initially held that “deputy sheriffs are not appropriately fragmented from existing units which include other sheriff department employee,” citing County Association of Patrol Officers, 25 PERB 3062, it noted that PERB had reconsidered its earlier rulings on this issue.
The Court noted that in Dutchess County Sheriffs PBA, 26 PERB 3069, PERB “suggested that ‘the law enforcement responsibilities and duties of deputy sheriffs and other sheriff’s department employees may be sufficient to warrant the establishment of a separate unit of deputy sheriffs.’“
The Appellate Division sustained the establishment of a separate negotiating unit for the criminal deputies, holding that PERB ruling in Erie was “nothing more than a logical extension of its prior decision in Dutchess.”
The Court noted with approval PERB’s view that an analysis of the duties of positions warranted the establishment of separate negotiating unions. Here, it said, “even a cursory review” reveals the “distinguishing features of the class, training, typical work activities and the knowledge, skills and minimum qualifications required.”
The Court adopted PERB’s analysis, commenting that the documentary and testimonial evidence adduced at the hearing with respect to the differences in the Deputy Sheriff-criminal and Deputy Sheriff-officer title series fully supported PERB’s determination that only those employed in the Deputy Sheriff-criminal series “have criminal law enforcement as the exclusive or primary attribute of his or her employment.”
Nothing in the Appellate Division’s opinion, however, suggests that PERB applied the “community of interest” standard in determining negotiating units as set out in Section 207 of the Civil Service Law [the Taylor Law].
Section 207, in the pertinent part, provides that for the purposes of resolving disputes concerning representation status, PERB shall define the appropriate employer-employee negotiating units taking into account a standard that provides that: the definition of the unit shall correspond to a community of interest among the employees to be included in the unit. Nothing in Section 207 refers to determining negotiating units on the basis of “the respective job descriptions” of positions.
Artificial Intelligence [A.I.] is not used, in whole or in part, in the preparation of summaries of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions posted on the Internet by NYPPL.
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor members of the NYPPL staff are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2023 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: email@example.com.