NYC Transit Authority v. Local 100 – Grievant: John Ferrari

DATED: Dec 4, 2015

In the Matter of the Arbitration

Between

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY

“Employer”

and

LOCAL  100, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION

“Union”

APPEARANCES

For the Employer

Jason Scheu, Esq., Labor Attorney

Aliaa Abdelrahman, Esq., Senior Director, Labor Relations

Yvette Vargas, Senior Director, Labor Relations

John Petrak, Esq., Senior Labor Attorney

Peter Janae, Superintendent

Rohann McLaren, Maintenance Supervisor II

For the Union

Arthur Schwartz, Esq., Attorney

Jack Blazejewicz, Co-Director, Grievance & Discipline

Billy Taaffe, Vice-Chair, Structures

John Ferrari, Grievant

BEFORE: HOWARD C. EDELMAN, ESQ., ARBITRATOR

This grievance protests the Authority’s failure to assign overtime work to John Ferrari on December 12, 2014. A hearing on this matter was held before me on November 16, 2015. At its conclusion, I closed the record. This Opinion and Award follows.

The Union contends the overtime in question was not emergency work. As such, it asserts, the work force should have been canvassed for the overtime. Had the Authority done so, Ferrari would have been selected for the assignment, it insists. Thus, it asks me to sustain its claim and order the Authority to pay the Grievant for eight hours work at time and a half.

The Authority argues the work was critical. It notes that a system overhaul was needed to ensure proper heating at the Coney Island facility. Consequently, it insists, it properly permitted the individual who had done most of the work to finish it on his day off. Assigning the overtime to any other employee would have unnecessarily delayed the completion of the overhaul, the Authority maintains. Therefore, it asks me to deny the grievance.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

There is no doubt the work, important as it was, did not constitute an emergency assignment. It was not performed on a continuing 24 hour basis. As such, and consistent with the parties’ prior agreement, Union members should have been canvassed to see who was willing to do the overtime.

On the other hand, the Union’s request for payment must be denied. An additional overtime opportunity is the proper remedy for this type of violation. Unless the Union can demonstrate that the Authority has repeatedly violated the agreed upon overtime procedures, no compensation is due Ferrari. Accordingly, the Union’s grievance is sustained to the extent indicated in this Opinion. It is so ordered.

AWARD

The Authority violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement by failing to properly canvass employees as to their availability to perform overtime work on December 12, 2014.

The Authority shall make available an extra overtime assignment for John Ferrari.

I, Howard C. Edelman, Esq., do hereby affirm upon my oath as Arbitrator that I am the individual described in and who executed this instrument, which is my Award.

Recent Posts

See All

NYCTA v. Local 100 (Grievant)

May 23, 2017 In the Matter of the Arbitration between NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY "Authority" or "Employer" and LOCAL 100, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION "Union" APPEARANCES For the Authority Jason Scheu

NYCTA v. Local 100 (Grievant)

May 23, 2017 In the Matter of the Arbitration between NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY “Authority” or “Employer” and LOCAL 100, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION “Union” APPEARANCES For the Authority Jason Scheu

NYCTA v. Local 100 (Grievant)

January 10, 2017 In the Matter of the Arbitration between NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY “Authority” or “Employer” and LOCAL 100, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION “Union” APPEARANCES For the Authority Thomas

Copyright © 2012 Advocates for Justice Chartered Attorneys