Reassignment of “exclusive duties” being performed by negotiating unit employees to non-unit employees

To contact us Click HERE

Reassignment of “exclusive duties” being performed bynegotiating unit employees to non-unit employeesStony Point Police Benevolent Association v Town of StonyPoint, PERB Case #U-29118
Attorney BrianD. Nugent* advised NYPPL of a November 14, 2012 ruling by thePublic Employment Relations Board [PERB] that considered “exclusivity of unit work” in the context of the employer's reassigningcertain duties and functions being performed by employees in a negotiating unit to non-unit employees.
The Stony Point Police Benevolent Association [PBA] filed animproper practice charge with PERB contending that the Town of Stony Pointviolated §209-a.1(d) of the Civil Service Law [The Taylor Law] when itunilaterally reassigned certain security duties that had been performedexclusively by employees in the  negotiating unit represented by the PBA to non-unit employees.
PERB agreed with the Town that the parties' past practiceestablished a discernible boundary between the work assignment at issue: thereassignment of certain security duties being performed by PBA unit members at the Town's Justice Courtto non-unit part-time personnel who were not sworn officers.**
PERB, noting that the duties at issue were transferred from sworn police officers to civilian employees, ruled that under its precedents“it is well-settled that an employer’s civilianization of uniformed servicesconstitutes a de facto change in job qualifications.”

PERB then considered the "balancing test" set out in its decision in Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, 18 PERB 3083.
Finding that there had been a significant change in the "job qualifications" with respect to the "at-issue" duties, PERB said that the only loss suffered by the PBA and its unitmembers was the “loss of at-issue work” in contrast to a loss in the number of positions in the unit or a loss of unit member benefits.

PERB's conclusion: the Town had not violated §209-a.1(d) of theTaylor Law, explaining that the Town’s interests associated with thecivilianization of the at-issue work outweigh the interests of the unitemployees.
Readers may obtain a copy of the decision [in PDF] bysending an e-mailing to publications@nycap.rr.comand typing “PERB 29118” in the subject line.
* Brian D. Nugent, Esq., Feerick Lynch MacCartney Pllc, http://www.flmpllc.com, represented the Town in this proceeding. 
** See Criminal Procedures Law §1.20.34