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, Esq., Labor Attorney

Baimusa Kamara, Esq., Deputy Vice-President

Tom Latimer, Esq., Senior Director, Labor Relations

Tabitha Williams, Director, Labor Relations

Sheila Hutson, Assistant Chief Officer, Stations

Valmiki Ramotar, Assistant Chief Officer, Stations

Cynthia Davis, Assistant Chief Officer, Stations

For the Union

Arthur Schwartz, Esq., Attorney

Jack Blazejewicz, Co-Director, Grievance & Discipline

Jerick Echevarria, Vice-President

Todd Lerner, Section Chairman

Joe Bermudez, Division Chairman

Antonio Roldan, Jr., Division Vice-Chairman

Brian Brooks, Section Vice-Chairman

Lynwood Whichard, Station Recording Secretary

BEFORE: HOWARD C. EDELMAN, ESQ., ARBITRATOR

A hearing on this matter was held before me on May 23, 2017. At the hearing the Union argued that the Authority violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it revised an agreed upon pick in the Stations Department. It also noted that during the discussions leading up to the pick, the Authority made no mention of new tools Cleaners must use. However, it maintains, the Authority intends to require Cleaners to utilize them when elevator tracks are cleaned. Accordingly, it asks me to sustain its grievance.

The Authority contends its actions were proper. It insists that the revised pick gave the Union the required fifteen days notice to comment upon it. Also, it alleges, picks are commonly revised during the process. Therefore, it asks me to deny the grievance.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

I agree with the Union that the Authority made a “mistake” when it supplied the book of listed jobs in March, 2017 to the Union without the changes in hours of work in question. The only issue before me, then, is to what extent, if any, that “mistake” should result in modification to the schedule for implementation of the pick.

In my view, and on a non-presidential basis, the Authority should afford the Union additional opportunity to comment upon the proposed pick. Thus, I conclude, the current May 30, 2017 deadline for posting the pick is to be extended to the close of business on Friday, June 2, 2017. Upon request of the Union, the Authority shall meet and discuss the pick and shall respond, in good faith, to Union concerns. The pick shall commence on Monday, June 5, 2017. The new pick shall be implemented as previously scheduled, on July 16, 2017.

Finally, the introduction of new tools does not violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Cleaners must clean elevator tracks and the implements are certainly not radically different from the brooms or other items currently in use. Any Cleaner who needs instruction on how to use the new tools may seek guidance from appropriate personnel. It is so ordered.

AWARD

The Union shall be afforded the opportunity to meet with the Authority regarding the Stations pick up to June 2, 2017.

The proposed pick shall be posted on June 5, 2017.

The new pick shall be implemented as previously scheduled, on July 16, 2017.

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

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)

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