Only the employees of the public employer, a union acting on their behalf or the public employer itself may intervene in an improper action pending before PERB

To contact us Click HERE

Only the employees of the public employer, a union actingon their behalf or the public employer itself may intervene in an improperaction pending before PERBCity of New York v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.,2012 NY Slip Op 09130, Appellate Division, Third Department
The State’s Public Employment Relations Board found that theBoard of Education of the City School District of the City of New York [Board]committed an improper employer practice in response to a complaint filed by theunion representing certain employees employed by the Board. The union had alleged that theBoard unilaterally changed a condition of employment by eliminating theautomatic granting of parking permits after the City adopted a new plan aimed at reducing traffic congestion in the City. 
The City of New York filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking an annulment of PERB'sdecision. PERB counterclaimed seeking enforcement of its remedial order.Supreme Court dismissed the City’s petition and granted PERB's counterclaim.
Addressing a “procedural issue,” the Appellate Division,noting that PERB's order did not make any findings against the City nor did itorder the City to do anything, ruled that the City did not have standing tocommence a proceeding seeking to annul PERB's decision. Thus, said the court,Supreme Court properly dismissed that the petition brought by the City,explaining thatthe City and the Board are separate legal entities.
Further, said the court, the City was not a party to the PERBproceeding and although it was argued that “the City could have intervened,”the court noted that PERB’s regulations only permit intervention by publicemployees, a union acting on their behalf or the public employer, citing 4NYCRR 212.1 [a]. In this instance, said the court, the relevant employer was the Board and not the City ofNew York.
As to PERB’s ruling concerning the merits of the alleged improper practicecharge filed against the Board, the Appellate Division considered Board’s argument that it had nocontrol over changes with respect to parking that was imposed upon it by theCity and therefore had no power to negotiate anything regarding this parkingpermit situation.
Conceding that the power to regulate traffic and parking oncity streets is expressly delegated to the City, the Appellate Division saidthat the relevant questions for it to address were [1] did the Board had anycontrol over the change in producing and distributing parking permits and [2]did PERB intruded on an area under the authority of the City or its Departmentof Transportation [DOT].
The Appellate Division’s answer: it agreed with PERB thatthe Board did have control over some aspects of the new parking permitsituation as DOT produced and provided to Board 10,007 site-specific placardsand 1,000 three-hour permits for on-street parking and did not have anyoversight responsibilities as to the distribution of such placards and permits.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_09130.htm