City of New York v. Plumbers Local Union No. 1City of New York v. Plumbers Local Union No. 1
—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered August 17, 1993, which denied the petition and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding by petitioners the City of New York ("the City”), Herman Jenkins, as Personnel Director of the City of New York ("DOP” or "the Personnel
The IAS Court properly determined that the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining ("the Board”), as the administrative agency empowered by statute to interpret Executive Orders which provide for the arbitration of grievances, had, in Decision No. B-27-92, properly exercised its statutory authority under NYCCBL (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 12-309 (a) (3), and rationally interpreted the scope of the grievance procedure contained in Mayoral Executive Order No. 83 § 5 (adding Executive Order No. 52 § 5 [b]), in finding that the Union grievance herein, which alleged violations by the Department of Sanitation of Department of Personnel Rules and Regulations, was an arbitrable grievance pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order No. 83.
Judicial review of administrative determinations is limited to whether the determination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (Matter of West Irondequoit Teachers Assn. v Helsby,
Broad deference must therefore be accorded determinations of the Board, which, pursuant to the Taylor Law, is the body charged with interpreting and implementing the NYCCBL and determining the rights and duties of labor and management in New York City (Matter of Levitt v Board of Collective Bargaining,
In rejecting petitioners’ contention that the Union may not grieve an alleged violation of DOP Rules and Regulations because they are not "written rules or regulations of the mayoral agency by whom the grievant is employed” under Executive Order No. 83 § 5 (adding Executive Order No. 52 § 5 [b] [B]), the Board therefore properly recognized that, consistent with the express policy of the NYCCBL favoring arbitration, the Board itself has long held that rules which apply to a mayoral agency, but which were not promulgated by that agency, may nevertheless constitute rules or regulations of the mayoral agency by whom the grievant is employed within the meaning of Executive Order No. 83 (City of New York v Anderson, supra; Board Decisions Nos. B-13-77, B-41-90), and, applying these precedents to the case at bar, therefore concluded that DOP Rules and Regulations, which apply to the DOS and all other mayoral agencies, may be deemed the rules and regulations of the DOS within the meaning of Executive Order No. 83 § 5 (adding Executive Order No. 52 § 5 [b] [B]).
The Board also found that employees in "mayoral agencies” not covered by collective bargaining agreements, including the respondents herein, may bring grievances alleging violations of DOP Rules and Regulations since DOP Rules and Regulations are not specifically excluded from the definition of "grievance” under Executive Order No. 83 § 5 (adding Executive Order No. 52 § 5 [b] [B]), unlike the grievance provisions contained in other collective bargaining agreements, and that the omission of that specific exclusion mandated a finding that alleged violations of DOP Rules and Regulations may be grieved under Executive Order No. 83 § 5 (adding Executive Order No. 52 § 5 [b] [B]).
Accordingly, we find that the IAS Court properly concluded that Board Decision No. B-27-92, finding that alleged violations by the Department of Sanitation of Department of Personnel Rules and Regulations are arbitrable disputes, was a rational exercise of the Board’s statutory power under the NYCCBL to determine arbitrability of grievances and to inter
Petitioners have failed to establish that public policy militates against finding the DOP Rules and Regulations subject to arbitration under Executive Order No. 83 and that the Union should be permanently enjoined on public policy grounds from proceeding with an arbitration of its grievance since the petitioners have not cited any constitutional, statutory or common law principles which invest the City Personnel Director with the exclusive, non-delegable authority to ensure compliance with its Rules and Regulations (Matter of Board of Educ. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.,
We have reviewed the petitioners’ remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.